"One last Duty to perform"
Or words to that effect, says the evil-bad-guy before blowing up his ship.
Well I'm trying not to be so dramatic, but I could ruin my video card, eventually my monitor, by listening to these pontificating know-it-alls.
I have to assume they really *do* know it all, or why am I wasting time?
The Gamma adjustment page (photoscientia.co.uk)
White saturation - Lagom LCD test
I wrote this a year ago or so, never looking back (I sort of avoided the subject.)
Today I went back to adjust "White Saturation" and just couldn't do it, the monitor or my videocard wasn't cooperating.
I punched the wrong button which reset the settings, and now it's as clear as it was a year ago.
I can adjust the crap out of Nvidia and the controls in my monitor, but I've NEVER been able to get "Gamma" right. It's always too low, and varies with color.
Black-level and White-saturation (hallucinatory gray boxes on pure white)
is all I can hope to accomplish.
Maybe you'll all do much better?
Anyone, please do better, or I've been listening to insane crackpots all these years.
I've lowered my saturation, my "Digital Vibrance" so colors don't seem to glow.
They wouldn't actually *bleed*, this isn't some CRT, but roses and red faces don't glow in real life.
Which would be more accurate, to snip a pic of (for example) the white-saturation test, or to use my phone camera, take an actual photo, upload it?
But I've never adjusted the finer points of my camera, such as "white balance".
This may take quite a few minutes, if you're following along, and if you're not, you'll wonder what I'm bitching about (because the whole entry will be dusty by the time you finally read it.)
 |
With this new editor, the pictures are shrunk down (and "unimportant details" are washed away)
I can almost imagine (maybe) I see what's under "254" when I am editing this, but once it's published, everything past "252" seems to fade away (except for the numbers)
|
Yes, well, I never did, probably never *will*, mess with the gamma again so soon, because if the black-level and white-saturation are off by a lot, what is the point?
By adjusting the adaptive contrast, the black-level, and a few other unreadables, I can get really-really close and console my self I'm being accurate for the rest.
Because if the truth is all you care about, I need to report that stuff looks less bright, less "Disney" than before, and is that a good thing, am I being more accurate?
Or is it a bad thing, living like a monk with flavorless colors for no particular reason.
 |
Whut? I don't get it.
(Link) |
Not for nothing but...Spending massive amounts for exact color reproduction does
nothing for everyone else.
So unless you work for a print-publisher, what's the point?
And they would have already spent the massive amounts....
Somewhere above I ranted that my monitor was stuck on 1.8 gamma...Maybe it's supposed to be?
OTOH I can't really tell *what* it is, there is no strict delineation. |
| It's close enough, says windows (IDK) |
My monitor I currently have, has no trendy things going for it, but it still goes on, and it has a stellar (heavy) base, it won't be tipping over soon.
OTOH, it, uhm, (let me see) does not have "Freesync" nor any HDR to speak of, and it only does "2k" (2160p) at 60 hz.
I would not know or care, but windows reminds me once in a while.
The depressing, nihilistic-thing is, the monitors that do all that stuff and more, are chewed out by Amazon reviewers.
Surely *my* monitor is much better than the crap they get sent?
The *secret* is to actually *find* one that isn't defective.
Mine works!! Yeahbutt....
*maybe* a newer model of my monitor.
Yes, I must look.
Well, I looked.
The Brand of my monitor favors Gsync, no biggie,
and a newer model has HDR400, also no biggie, but it all feels like a big letdown.
"Similar" monitors at the bottom of the amazon page show better but more expensive monitors.
Monitors that my poor video card would have trouble keeping up with, but that's also "no biggie"
but the price is *very* biggie:
I never asked but, does it have a DisplayPort??
Is the credit market *really* gonna crash soon?
Well anyway, it's nice to look.
Chapter 4
This next bit is me just mumbling to myself in a dusty corner of my virtual internet-house...
The page above is almost as confusing as Spectrum itself.
Say You've gotten a low price on internet, which we'll call "X"
for now. And please remember, third-graders do better than me at math.
Let's drag out that hoary old visual aid for very young children, the "number line."
No, let's not, it's WAY more complicated than I remember.
X---Standard----Ultra------Gig
Wait, wasn't I just wallowing in poverty a day ago, dreaming of Cigarettes?
Plus,
(plus,)
uhm,
49.95, is that a fixed fee you pay up-front no matter which plan you pick?
199.95, is that the fixed fee for "Gig"?
If they charged every fee imaginable, and they probably do not,
installation 49.95, Activation 9.95, (and "gig", 199.95)
so X becomes, X+49.95, or at least X+9.95 (for them pressing a button) plus 49.95mo.
So (let's review) if they're feeling generous that day, Only x (what you're paying now)
Plus a prorated 49.95-monthly fee,
but if you've pissed off the rep asking too many questions or speaking too loudly,
uhm,
$100 now, 50 a month.
So, (o fucket, isn't a single player game designed to make you forget you have no TV and your internet is slower than Methuselah's trick-knee,
Isn't a game cheaper?)
Nevermind.
Maybe it's who you know, or how you look (I'll bet hot people get cheaper rates)
And I wasn't done (o gawd)!
If you're already paying "X", does "X" get subtracted from the new fee?
of COURSE it would, says all common sense in existence everywhere,
so WHY does their page to sign up want "49.95" NOW?
Is it a token amount for them to get off of their ass to change your account?
If you're feeling richer than God, and plus it's Christmas,
uh,
WHAT would your JANUARY Bill look like??
(Sorry, was I yelling repetitively? It's just, all so UNCLEAR)
Frugal (forfeit fee)
Decadent (pay a fee, again)
Frugal....etc
No comments:
Post a Comment