|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have not seen this movie, but after the pictures. If its a day scene like it looks like clear pick the JVC. The mud has a color not oil like the crt picture.
If its a night scene clair pick the crt picture.
There is also a lot of blackcrush in the crt picture, maybe that's why so black also.
I also feel that the jvc is more real then cleanness. But I also liked the CRT picture.
But again is it day or night?
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
65.5 KB |
| Viewed: |
2624 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here 3 pictures, I marked with red where to take the picture.
Show me pictures Smile Find the picture and find the time in picture.
Who will do this...... Cant wait to see.
A little peak..from picure nr 2
Picture taken with iso 100, shutter 0,5sec. 5,6 Canon camera.
Last edited by Diddern on Tue Mar 17, 2015 8:29 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | I have not seen this movie, but after the pictures. If its a day scene like it looks like clear pick the JVC. The mud has a color not oil like the crt picture.
If its a night scene clair pick the crt picture.
There is also a lot of blackcrush in the crt picture, maybe that's why so black also.
I also feel that the jvc is more real then cleanness. But I also liked the CRT picture.
But again is it day or night? |
Its not much problem to put up the brightness on a crt if you like a lower gamma, a CRT should look darker than any digital who wont go all black.
If you look in the black area of those 2 pics you will also see that the digital is elevated, and there is some artifacts/ color polution coming out of black, so ill guess the low level is pumped up. I dont see any clean black.
If you look around the eyes you will see a huge difference in the skin and mud detail level, but as its not possible to make anyone tell if its the projector or the screenshot, its hard to find out whats going on.
Would be nice if one of you would post that picture and state that it illustrate the detail level seen on the screen, or the one we have here do that already.
It will be perfectly ok to use the original hi res image and crop it just to show the eye part, to keep as much of the information from the original picture.
Mikes original image is around 1,9Mb and about 30€ is black around the screen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | I have not seen this movie, but after the pictures. If its a day scene like it looks like clear pick the JVC. The mud has a color not oil like the crt picture.
If its a night scene clair pick the crt picture.
There is also a lot of blackcrush in the crt picture, maybe that's why so black also.
I also feel that the jvc is more real then cleanness. But I also liked the CRT picture.
But again is it day or night? |
Its not much problem to put up the brightness on a crt if you like a lower gamma, a CRT should look darker than any digital who wont go all black.
If you look in the black area of those 2 pics you will also see that the digital is elevated, and there is some artifacts/ color polution coming out of black, so ill guess the low level is pumped up. I dont see any clean black.
If you look around the eyes you will see a huge difference in the skin and mud detail level, but as its not possible to make anyone tell if its the projector or the screenshot, its hard to find out whats going on.
Would be nice if one of you would post that picture and state that it illustrate the detail level seen on the screen, or the one we have here do that already.
It will be perfectly ok to use the original hi res image and crop it just to show the eye part, to keep as much of the information from the original picture.
Mikes original image is around 1,9Mb and about 30€ is black around the screen. |
Lower gamma, my JVC is calibrated at 2.35 powergamma and it will go all black. With the low ansi of a CRT black will turn to gray in a mixed scene with bright and black parts.
I did a new crop of the original mud picture and here you can easily see the JVC is better. 
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
61.8 KB |
| Viewed: |
2601 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
191.08 KB |
| Viewed: |
2601 Time(s) |
|
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
Last edited by Andreas21 on Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="stridsvognen"] | Diddern wrote: | I have not seen this movie, but after the pictures. If its a day scene like it looks like clear pick the JVC. The mud has a color not oil like the crt picture.
If its a night scene clair pick the crt picture.
There is also a lot of blackcrush in the crt picture, maybe that's why so black also.
I also feel that the jvc is more real then cleanness. But I also liked the CRT picture.
But again is it day or night? |
I removed the black borders because I focus on the image, not the boarders. And again I have not seen the film so I do not know if its a dayscene or a night scene.
And like I see it on the JVC there is not much total black in that picture.
CRT should look darker than any digital who wont go all black. With blackcrush or correct adjusted?
If you look in the black area of those 2 pics you will also see that the digital is elevated, and there is some artifacts/ color polution coming out of black, so ill guess the low level is pumped up. I dont see any clean black.
Again I look at the hole picture, and then let me know where.. I see the colour pollution, that can be because of blackcrush, or camera artifact. Wortless, I just say what I see.
If you look around the eyes you will see a huge difference in the skin and mud detail level, but as its not possible to make anyone tell if its the projector or the screenshot, its hard to find out whats going on.
The skin tone looks wrong to me when comparing this 2 pictures, I do not know his reference calebration, but I know Andreas is perfect up to the HD TV standard. Here also can be shuttertime, and other stuff. Not the same camera or screen.
Would be nice if one of you would post that picture and state that it illustrate the detail level seen on the screen, or the one we have here do that already. I do not have that film, Maybe I buy it. AGAIN is the scene form a Night scene or a day scene???
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stridsvognen,,,,, you cant zoom in on bad pictures please stop doing that. You need to take a photo close to the screen.....
I have now posted 3 pictures and show where to take pictures. And sent a peak on pic nr 2.
Try to understand that what you are doing here are completely worthless.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | I have not seen this movie, but after the pictures. If its a day scene like it looks like clear pick the JVC. The mud has a color not oil like the crt picture.
If its a night scene clair pick the crt picture.
There is also a lot of blackcrush in the crt picture, maybe that's why so black also.
I also feel that the jvc is more real then cleanness. But I also liked the CRT picture.
But again is it day or night? |
Its not much problem to put up the brightness on a crt if you like a lower gamma, a CRT should look darker than any digital who wont go all black.
If you look in the black area of those 2 pics you will also see that the digital is elevated, and there is some artifacts/ color polution coming out of black, so ill guess the low level is pumped up. I dont see any clean black.
If you look around the eyes you will see a huge difference in the skin and mud detail level, but as its not possible to make anyone tell if its the projector or the screenshot, its hard to find out whats going on.
Would be nice if one of you would post that picture and state that it illustrate the detail level seen on the screen, or the one we have here do that already.
It will be perfectly ok to use the original hi res image and crop it just to show the eye part, to keep as much of the information from the original picture.
Mikes original image is around 1,9Mb and about 30€ is black around the screen. |
Lower gamma, my JVC is calibrated at 2.35 powergamma and it will go all black. With the low ansi of a CRT black will turn to gray in a miced scene with bright and black parts.
I did a new crop of the original mud picture and here you can easily see the JVC is better. |
Looks like you just got more artifacts.. where is all the high res content in the skin and mud..? Do this guy have purple spots flying around in his skin.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | I have not seen this movie, but after the pictures. If its a day scene like it looks like clear pick the JVC. The mud has a color not oil like the crt picture.
If its a night scene clair pick the crt picture.
There is also a lot of blackcrush in the crt picture, maybe that's why so black also.
I also feel that the jvc is more real then cleanness. But I also liked the CRT picture.
But again is it day or night? |
Its not much problem to put up the brightness on a crt if you like a lower gamma, a CRT should look darker than any digital who wont go all black.
If you look in the black area of those 2 pics you will also see that the digital is elevated, and there is some artifacts/ color polution coming out of black, so ill guess the low level is pumped up. I dont see any clean black.
If you look around the eyes you will see a huge difference in the skin and mud detail level, but as its not possible to make anyone tell if its the projector or the screenshot, its hard to find out whats going on.
Would be nice if one of you would post that picture and state that it illustrate the detail level seen on the screen, or the one we have here do that already.
It will be perfectly ok to use the original hi res image and crop it just to show the eye part, to keep as much of the information from the original picture.
Mikes original image is around 1,9Mb and about 30€ is black around the screen. |
Lower gamma, my JVC is calibrated at 2.35 powergamma and it will go all black. With the low ansi of a CRT black will turn to gray in a miced scene with bright and black parts.
I did a new crop of the original mud picture and here you can easily see the JVC is better. |
Looks like you just got more artifacts.. where is all the high res content in the skin and mud..? Do this guy have purple spots flying around in his skin.? |
Look at the detail you have been so eager to point out. There is much more detail in the skin and mud, if you don´t see that you are blind. The artifacts is from the compression.
But this is piontless, you are unbeliveable.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | I have not seen this movie, but after the pictures. If its a day scene like it looks like clear pick the JVC. The mud has a color not oil like the crt picture.
If its a night scene clair pick the crt picture.
There is also a lot of blackcrush in the crt picture, maybe that's why so black also.
I also feel that the jvc is more real then cleanness. But I also liked the CRT picture.
But again is it day or night? |
Its not much problem to put up the brightness on a crt if you like a lower gamma, a CRT should look darker than any digital who wont go all black.
If you look in the black area of those 2 pics you will also see that the digital is elevated, and there is some artifacts/ color polution coming out of black, so ill guess the low level is pumped up. I dont see any clean black.
If you look around the eyes you will see a huge difference in the skin and mud detail level, but as its not possible to make anyone tell if its the projector or the screenshot, its hard to find out whats going on.
Would be nice if one of you would post that picture and state that it illustrate the detail level seen on the screen, or the one we have here do that already.
It will be perfectly ok to use the original hi res image and crop it just to show the eye part, to keep as much of the information from the original picture.
Mikes original image is around 1,9Mb and about 30€ is black around the screen. |
Lower gamma, my JVC is calibrated at 2.35 powergamma and it will go all black. With the low ansi of a CRT black will turn to gray in a miced scene with bright and black parts.
I did a new crop of the original mud picture and here you can easily see the JVC is better. |
Looks like you just got more artifacts.. where is all the high res content in the skin and mud..? Do this guy have purple spots flying around in his skin.? |
Are you not reading what I say or are you to stupid to understand.
I look at this on a pc monitor, and I do not zoom in and you never answer any question I ask.
If you not start answering me I start to ignore you.
Is this a day or night scene?
What color is normal mud?
Do you see that it's to much red in the face color in the picture?
Do you see the black crush feeling when looking at the 2 pictures?
Can the CRT have so much black crush that it could be that it's not black where I see red noise, can it be a downscaled artifact?
But this is pictures so I only say what I see. After the pictures as they are. And they are not the originals.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | You just have to do your best, look at the picture, and confirm it represent whats on your screen. |
Confirm it represents what's on your screen according to whom and what? You, looking at your computer monitor (which likely isn't calibrated, after it's been through a camera that also isn't profiled, then comparing it to somebody else's screenshots which were judged on a monitor which also isn't calibrated, under varying light conditions, from a totally different camera, screen, projector? This is process is so fraught with error and inaccuracy, that's utterly WORTHLESS for anything other than entertainment purposes.
Trying to judge black levels based on this process and saying things like, "I can tell the black levels are much better on this projector than that projector" or saying, "This projector just looks much more analog" when the photos were taken under completely different conditions is beyond ridiculous and ignorant.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Lets see who can do the best screen shot of that mud face. |
That's what you'll be finding out - who can do the best screen shot - which will have little to nothing to do with what people will actually be seeing in reality.
I also have to laugh at this whole "artificial sharpness" idea, like pixels are evil. Almost all movies are now shot on digital, and on the rare occasion they aren't, the rest of the entire post-production process, right up to and including the Blu-ray disc, is ALL DIGITAL. There are pixels in every single damn step of that process, yet somehow if a projector uses pixels, it's a horrible thing. <smh>
Guess what? If a digital guy want less sharpness and lower MTF, he can defocus the projector slightly. Even at 1080p, with typical viewing angles, nobody will see the pixels unless they strain to find them, and then only under certain circumstances. Even then, it's just the projector very faithfully reproducing the original signal, which is of course made up of pixels.
The CRT fanboy-ism here is just as pathetic as the digital fanboy-ism.
SC |
This is one of the few useful posts over the last several pages - strangely enough, strids chose to ignore it. Do you have a reasonable response, Kurt? Or are you going to continue to demand answers to meaningless questions about equally useless pictures? |
Yeah ecrabb has for the longest been telling all about pictures, whats wrong, and how to make them right.. But he never post any shots.. so its hard to take the guy serious.
This game should leave all advances to the Digital, as the CRT have that bad bad MTF, and Mike uses a cheep camera in a room with some daylight. |
Ah, perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of calibration. Calibration is the comparison of something to a known standard. It's useful in numerous fields, including that of capturing and reproducing both video and still pictures with respect to white point, gamma, and color space. In reality, no one really calibrates their capture device or display, as no one compares their white point or color to the actual source reference. Instead, we have field instruments which have been compared to the reference, and then we use those instruments to adjust our capture devices and video displays.
The concept of calibration applies just as equally across the chain from capture thru editing to display. If any item in the chain is not properly calibrated, then you completely lose the fidelity of the original image. For example, if the camera you use isn't actually set to D65 as its reference white point (and you haven't actually calibrated that on your camera), then every single grey and color that it captures will be skewed when reproduced on any display that's not set exactly the same. Because of the incredibly wide variation in potential settings, chances are incredibly low that a random display will perfectly match the uncalibrated settings on your improperly set up camera.
Another example: if the gamma and brightness are no properly set on your monitor, then when you adjust an image to make it "look" like what you're seeing on the display you took a picture of, you're only adjusting it to look correct on that display. Show that picture on another display - even the exact same model with the exact same settings - and there's more than enough tolerance variation in consumer electronics to allow that picture to look completely different. In fact, chances are incredibly high that it will crush or inflate blacks rather than being spot on as compared to the previous display. The same here applies to color settings and greyscale.
Thus, when discussing screen shots for the purpose of comparing color, greyscale, black levels, shadow detail, and other image qualities that we use to measure the "rightness" of a display (even that term has a lot of grey area...pun partially intended), it is paramount the capture device, editing monitor, and subsequent viewing monitors all perform identically and be calibrated identically. If this is not the case, then you're shooting at a moving target, and useful comparison becomes impossible - you'd have better luck pissing into the wind.
This is exactly what ecrabb is pointing out. Your request that each person "give it their best shot" is utterly meaningless because, unless all capture devices, editing processes and monitors, and viewing monitors are standardized and calibrated, than what appears to be black crush with understaurated colors on one monitor will be just about right on another, and floating blacks and oversaturated colors on yet another.
This is exactly what Steve and now I have been trying to point out, and what you have for some reason been blithely ignoring in your quest here. For someone who seems so concerned about preserving video fidelity, I find this to be a curious and incredibly contradictory stance. Either you care about accurate image reproduction or you just like what looks good to you personally; you can't burn that candle at both ends.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | There is 2 options here, and it would be nice to know whats the right one. |
No, and that's the crux of all this screenshot nonsense: given the variability in capture device and display settings, there is a virtually limitless set of options here, almost none of which are correct in terms of maintaining image fidelity.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | The digital sucks, or those guys cant make a decent screenshot. |
I really have no interest in your CRT vs digital pissing match here, just as I have no interest in whether a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill or whether a Phillips #1 head is better than a #2 head. They're all false dichotomies which have no logically superior choice; rather, you pick what suits you best, accepting its advantages and shortcomings.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | And they hold the power to tell whats right, im just asking the question. |
No, your question is meaningless because no standard basis for comparison (i.e. across the board calibration) has been applied. Even if it were, limitations of the display on which the images were viewed would color (in the general sense of distorting) them in its own way. Unless you think you couldn't tell the difference between an LCD, plasma, OLED, and CRT all properly calibrated to D65, REC.709, and BT.1886 gamma.
Of course, this all completely ignores the lunacy of taking a compressed picture - using finite pixels - of an image comprised of different pixels, editing it, and then further compressing it and claiming it serves any utility for observing supposed digital artifacts, MTF/sharpness/detail of a display, and other pixel-level qualities.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | What image of that muddy face do you think looks the best.? |
Again, a wholly meaningless question when using screen shots to make the comparison. What I have presented is fact; ignoring it and continuing to harp on screen shots won't change that. It will simply make you more incorrect in this endeavor.
Caveat: I'm NOT weighing in on the whole CRT vs digital nonsense. It's a stupid argument to begin with. I'm simply pointing out your wholly incorrect, incessant harping on screen shots as if they actually mean something. Which they don't for the things that you're trying to compare. |
So if you for a moment forget its a screenshot, whats the best picture of the 2.? |
What a insultingly dismissive and insipid answer to a well thought out, scientifically-backed reply. This is the best you can offer? Plea that we ignore reality and then re-ask your already debunked question?
The only appropriate answer I can provide is that I reject the fallacious premise of your "question". I will not ignore decades of solid understanding of the human visual system and imagery reproduction in order to brush aside reality and choose between your false dichotomy.
Since we're asking ridiculous questions: what's the ratio of unicorns to leprechauns?
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I marked up a place on both pictures. Just so i understand you, the flatness in that area is what you call high resolution details.?
And why do your picture have much more artifacts than Mikes shot..?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | I marked up a place on both pictures. Just so i understand you, the flatness in that area is what you call high resolution details.?
And why do your picture have much more artifacts than Mikes shot..? |
Look at the flatness of the whole CRT picture compared to the JVC, look at the lower eyelid, look at his skin inperfections, look at the detail in the mud+++
The marked place is actually flatter on the CRT, so I don´t see your point. Why dont you just zoom in on that part also??
And the color on the CRT is not very natural, it is oversaturated.
Why do you ignore everything that is explained to you and just turn around to something else. You should notice what hogpilot wrote there is much thruth in his post. And you also ignore every question people ask you, is there a reason for that??
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | I marked up a place on both pictures. Just so i understand you, the flatness in that area is what you call high resolution details.?
And why do your picture have much more artifacts than Mikes shot..? |
Leave it ......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | I marked up a place on both pictures. Just so i understand you, the flatness in that area is what you call high resolution details.?
And why do your picture have much more artifacts than Mikes shot..? |
Here you see the CRT look flat compared. LOL
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here a peak still waiting for a fantastic CRT
Last edited by Diddern on Tue Mar 17, 2015 8:30 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys, you have allowed Strid to suck you into the screenshots discussion. If you're not for the shots, stop commenting on them, especially trying to point out how the JVC looks better based on the shots.
You gotta stop letting us take you on those trips. It's a really dumb discussion to be trying to prove which technology is better, when there's no real evaluative means to confirm. It's just flapping your jaws with opinion. And if you notice, not many are even bothering to join these dumb debates.
Again, we're mostly hobbyist. So you're really wasting your time trying to get converts. We really don't care one way or the other. They are two different technologies and both have plus and minuses, that ain't worth the argument. It's realluy a choice thing so let people make up their own minds.
I now turn them back over to Strids..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reddman
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 70
Location: South Carolina
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | Guys, you have allowed Strid to suck you into the screenshots discussion. If you're not for the shots, stop commenting on them, especially trying to point out how the JVC looks better based on the shots.
You gotta stop letting us take you on those trips. It's a really dumb discussion to be trying to prove which technology is better, when there's no real evaluative means to confirm. It's just flapping your jaws with opinion. And if you notice, not many are even bothering to join these dumb debates.
Again, we're mostly hobbyist. So you're really wasting your time trying to get converts. We really don't care one way or the other. They are two different technologies and both have plus and minuses, that ain't worth the argument. It's realluy a choice thing so let people make up their own minds.
I now turn them back over to Strids.. |
Well said Mike. I love the image I get from my crt projector but I'm open to getting a digital projector at some point in the near future because I would love to give home 3D a try but I also want to have a simple plug and play solution for my wife and kids so they can leave my CRT alone I'm after good PQ whether it's provided by a crt or a digital projector. There's room for both in my home entertainment world
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
km987654
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 2874
Location: Australia
TV/Projector: Barco BG809s
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | Guys, you have allowed Strid to suck you into the screenshots discussion. If you're not for the shots, stop commenting on them, especially trying to point out how the JVC looks better based on the shots.
You gotta stop letting us take you on those trips. It's a really dumb discussion to be trying to prove which technology is better, when there's no real evaluative means to confirm. It's just flapping your jaws with opinion. And if you notice, not many are even bothering to join these dumb debates.
Again, we're mostly hobbyist. So you're really wasting your time trying to get converts. We really don't care one way or the other. They are two different technologies and both have plus and minuses, that ain't worth the argument. It's realluy a choice thing so let people make up their own minds.
I now turn them back over to Strids.. |
Yes. The whole discussion no matter the perspective is a waste of time. The best you can get is someones opinion and who really cares what someone else thinks of your projector. Get off it so I stop getting 100s of post messages or take it to the digital forum or is there a "Totally useless information" forum. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tanwn1
Joined: 08 Dec 2014
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Like i said, i own a sony d50, G70, barco cine7 and cinemax (aka 909) and JVC x700 and samsung 65HU8500. I am still enjoying both technology and both have their own merits. But one has more merit than the other, I will leave it to you to guess.
I love CRT and I love Digital when both are done RIGHT, properly calibrated!! I think we should all be matured enough to embrace both technology and admit its weakness or shortcoming rather than playing the blaming game. If I own a CRT only, i will always say its the best, if i own a Digital i will also say its the best. Only and only if you own both or have see both properly calibrated at the same environment, can you then do a fair judgement. I have see them BOTH, if you want honest opinion pm me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | Here 3 pictures, I marked with red where to take the picture.
Show me pictures Smile Find the picture and find the time in picture.
Who will do this...... Cant wait to see.
A little peak..from picure nr 2
Picture taken with iso 100, shutter 0,5sec. 5,6 Canon camera. |
I took the pictures and automatic settings are: Exposure 1 sec. ISO 80. F 2,7. Sharpness normal.
The eye scene, taken from the right, got hue to be the most realistic with greenish tint skin - taken from the left though, it suddenly looks like it was shot in normal lit environment, however, the greenish one is what it looks like on screen.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
137.31 KB |
| Viewed: |
2416 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
204.35 KB |
| Viewed: |
2416 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
313.01 KB |
| Viewed: |
2416 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
262.08 KB |
| Viewed: |
2416 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
263.63 KB |
| Viewed: |
2416 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
