Re: Barco vs Eizo
Re: Barco vs Eizo
- Subject: Re: Barco vs Eizo
- From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:09:59 +0100
on 10/9/05 16:55, Roger Breton at email@hidden wrote:
>> The CG220 looks pretty ugly and I still can't believe that such an expensive
>> device has only one USB socket!
>
> What do you mean by 'ugly': the enclosure, the color itself, what?
I mean that the person who designed the CG220 won't be joining Stevesy (or
Papa Steve - he won't let me call him Dad*) at next year's D&AD awards.
I imagine that the designer was in search of inspiration but then decided to
goof off and play some games on his PS2... Eureka, job done. Copy the PS2
and add some cheap plastic flappy things to the back to tidy the cables
away.
[snip]
>> What's the point of spending more than 3x the price of a similar (and
>> larger) monitor when you spend most of your time watching the colour values?
>
> True. But those color values may not mean much when the press actual
> behavior is taken into consideration, IMO. Some presses conditions are not
> like US WebCoated SWOP v2 at all, some grades of paper are not like the old
> Champion TexWeb#5 at all -- heck, SWOP can't even get their certified press
> run going with the new Tembec Monterrey #5 (can't buy a certified SWOP press
> sheet these days). So who is to say what 35%C + 100%Y look like, with any
> certainty?
Some of us - including the people at Eizo's headquarters - have little
interest in SWOP. If I want stringent control then I want Eizo heading
towards Heidelberg not across the Atlantic to match inappropriate RGB/CMYK
colour standards (using the term *standard* lightly because ubiquity has
nothing to do with meeting agreed targets).
>> However, if you're a photographer who wants the closest you can get to
>> WYSIWYG in Adobe1998 - it's most probably worth every penny.
>
> Right. I think some photographers always go for the best of the best, no
> matter what. I can just think of how expensive all the old Hasselblade 500CM
> and 500ELM were, and everyone in the industry had to have. Yes, they had
> good value, were solid and all, the CarlZeiss optics was great. But I was
> getting by with my Bronica SQ no problem. (Anyone see digital camera backs
> for an SQ?)
As Tamron blamed digital photography for killing off Bronica in 2004 I doubt
that you'd find a solution made by Tamron. But you can get adapter plates
that enable you to fit Hasselblad backs (for SQAi and ETRS).
Regards
*Film reference - I'm not related to Steve
--
Martin Orpen
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden