Nugget don't know what your looking at but this is the first time gel has posted a picture since owning his calibrated plasma that's not been blown out.
ellisdj said:
its quite a bit higher ambient light levels than his usual photos which would explain the better exposure. Daylight rather than lightbulb as well meaning different colour temps. I've no doubt the pana, lg and Samsung are all ace TVs but taking photos of them for anything other than "this is what it looks like in my room" is pointless.
Even then, there are far too many variables. A camera does not behave like the human eye unless significant care is taken.
the eye has a much broader dynamic range than both the screen and camera. A bright highlight on a TV in a dark room will be a much broader dynamic range than a camera can handle, so the camera will try to average the scene to 18% grey. The bright spot on the screen will shift the exposure downwards to compensate meaning shadow detail is lost. So whenever someone comments on the lovely inky blacks, it's probably just lack of camera dynamic range.
Next up is colour, and again the camera is not behaving like the human eye. The eye gives colour as is, it does not try to compensate. Your camera does not know what colour light is supposed to be, so again it will tweak the colours in the photo to an average. It could be fixing colour errors in the tv picture, it could be making them worse.
cameras do not use the same colour profiles as TVs, they have a much broader range of colour than rec 709 or even dcip3. but how the camera interprets that colour you have little control over without manually controlling white ballance using some kind of grey card. You send the photo over to your laptop, a different colour profile and a different screen is giving a different interpretation. The person on the other end of the interwebs, who knows what they are viewing. So far we are on our third display with a third colour profile and a third exposure all sticking their oar in.
I once had a wedding client email me asking for the RAW photos as he thought they were too bright. It was a very challenging wedding with harsh hard light and I'd spent hours with careful exposures pushing the dynamic range in post on a calibrated monitor, only to have the customer viewing on an uncalibrated display think they were over exposed. You can't control the output of a photo unless you print it.
Hopefully this gives some insight in to the lottery that is photographing a bright coloured light source in a dark environment.
the eye has a much broader dynamic range than both the screen and camera. A bright highlight on a TV in a dark room will be a much broader dynamic range than a camera can handle, so the camera will try to average the scene to 18% grey. The bright spot on the screen will shift the exposure downwards to compensate meaning shadow detail is lost. So whenever someone comments on the lovely inky blacks, it's probably just lack of camera dynamic range.
Next up is colour, and again the camera is not behaving like the human eye. The eye gives colour as is, it does not try to compensate. Your camera does not know what colour light is supposed to be, so again it will tweak the colours in the photo to an average. It could be fixing colour errors in the tv picture, it could be making them worse.
cameras do not use the same colour profiles as TVs, they have a much broader range of colour than rec 709 or even dcip3. but how the camera interprets that colour you have little control over without manually controlling white ballance using some kind of grey card. You send the photo over to your laptop, a different colour profile and a different screen is giving a different interpretation. The person on the other end of the interwebs, who knows what they are viewing. So far we are on our third display with a third colour profile and a third exposure all sticking their oar in.
I once had a wedding client email me asking for the RAW photos as he thought they were too bright. It was a very challenging wedding with harsh hard light and I'd spent hours with careful exposures pushing the dynamic range in post on a calibrated monitor, only to have the customer viewing on an uncalibrated display think they were over exposed. You can't control the output of a photo unless you print it.
Hopefully this gives some insight in to the lottery that is photographing a bright coloured light source in a dark environment.
Paul thats great info, thanks - I will be honest I do look at 90% of content on a calibrated monitor - not the best one in the world. I try and factor in its poor black level for starters. I then cross reference with my phone to see if the image looks similar or different. Sometimes you can make an educated guess on something in terms of that looks like it needs calibrating. I used to take lots of photos of my several plasma TV's in dark rooms and never suffered from whites being crushed when looking back at them. Blacks being crushed very much so if there was not enough light output.
All Gels's photos of his LG looked to have this - now he is posting similar shots in similar light and there is no sign of it - using the same camera.
I am no expert but that was the basis of my comments made. Your description matches my experience where I said my phone camera seems to add to the picture - I think it over saturates the colour - Samsung probably think thats what looks better so will sell better - maybe its just the tech. but the rest is not a bad representation of the real thing I have always thought - with the exception of scale
All Gels's photos of his LG looked to have this - now he is posting similar shots in similar light and there is no sign of it - using the same camera.
I am no expert but that was the basis of my comments made. Your description matches my experience where I said my phone camera seems to add to the picture - I think it over saturates the colour - Samsung probably think thats what looks better so will sell better - maybe its just the tech. but the rest is not a bad representation of the real thing I have always thought - with the exception of scale
Native_bon
Well-known member
- Nov 26, 2008
- 182
- 5
- 18,595
Just waiting for the HDR firmware update now... Updated to the 3.004 from 3.003 just need the 3.005 now.
gel said:
Not at the minute dude but have seen your link to WowHD good skills didnt know about them
I had deliberately held off buying sicario because its a finished in 4K movie so is worth buying on Ultra HD, however not sure how quick I will be investing in UHD - see how work goes
Just played my first 3D movie on this TV and it was Guns n Roses live in Las Vegas - pretty impressive stuff.
ellisdj said:
Same. Martian and sicario are my only day one buys although I might get the Samsung so Martian is free
shame i didn't have the blu-ray anymore, just got some rubbish compressed file from online and was taken at night with indoor lighting
[/img]
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Does slightly heavier tracking force really damage records easily?
- Started by Ohmish
- Replies: 5
-
How much are you likely to pay for headphones in the near future?- Started by Jasonovich
- Replies: 118
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram