Colours

[colin hill]

I was inspired by a beautiful piece of music by Marshall Styler and decided to put this presentation

together to this music. The presentation lasts the full length of the music and consists of a mixture

of photographs from my library and from Google.

Hope you enjoy!

Colin

http://www.mediafire.com/?blduo9bf26f5dmn

[Ken Cox]

Colin

great show and i appreciate you enabling manual control

and

as you know i dont care where you got the pictures -- i luv good stuff

ken

[JudyKay]

I really like it. Thanks.

[colin hill]

Thank you for your comments, much appreciated.

Colin

[paulziets]

Colin,

Thanks for posting your show. Sorry it's taken so long to comment but my home internet connection is so slow that I had to download to a stick in the office and bring it home to watch. Although I love black and white photography, I think you are right in that all the photographs in the presentation are better in colour. The music blends in well.

I can't wait to see your airshow presentation.

Regards,

Paul

[trailertrash]

The things we take for granted! Love the concept. Nicely done.

Andrew

[coopernatural]

Hi Colin,

Got your AV and have watched it several times now.

Gets better with each viewing. I'm not a fan of text in an AV,(well maybe a documentary)

but this was bordering on divine advertising.

That's not for everybody,but it's your AV and I'm not going to cramp your creativity/opinion.

The image pace works well with the music and its a pleasing AV presentation. Relaxavous style.

Good work,

Davy

[davegee]

Colin,

I have watched the show at 1920x1080 and agree for the most part with what has already been said.

However, in the spirit of making a CONSTRUCTIVE comment my enjoyment was spoiled by the rather nasty JPEG artifacts displayed on some images.

To give just one example, the first butterfly in black and white has some artifacts which disappear when the image changes to colour.

This leads me to GUESS that you PERHAPS took the colour JPEGs and made the B+W versions from them?

Whatever the reason, I think would have enjoyed the show far better without the artifacts.

Sorry!

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi Colin,

Looked super to me. I couldn't see the artifacts David sees - wonder if it's because of CRT versus LCD/LED display properties?

For David:

I don't see why desaturating a JPG would "introduce" artifacts. Major artifacts generally happen in jpg files because of excess compression

Best regards,

Lin

[Ken Cox]

Gee Dave

i played it via hdmi to my 37" Panasonic and tried it in the various modes 4/3, zoom, full, hi-fill and just

and could see nothing wrong from 12 ft - then i got up and viewed from 1 ft and i could literally count the hairs on the big butterfly

there may have been some very slight jaggies on the small butterfly at 1 ft but not at 12 ft -- but that may or may not have been Colin's pict.

ken

[davegee]

Lin, Ken,

Please compare the areas I have indicated (taken from the mono versions) with the corresponding colour versions during the change-over.

I'm viewing on a 24" IIYAMA 1920x1200 Monitor from my normal viewing distance of around 3'.

Lin,

You are correct. I'm suggesting that the original JPEG was/might have been a quality 6 JPEG and was then converted to B+W and re-saved (once again) at quality six.

The originals are OK but the second generation saves are overcompressed.

DG

P.S. My examples were saved at quality 12.

[Lin Evans]

Hi David,

I can plainly see them in your capture, but with much more difficulty on the original. I believe this (my inability to see them) is due to a combination of reasons. I'm looking at a lower screen resolution (1024x768) and on a CRT which has less abrupt shifts in gray levels than an LCD which tends to slightly blur gray transitions of very close luminance. The butterfly effect was apparently made from three slides - one grayscale, one of low saturation color and the final well saturated. I think it would be possible to "fix" this by simply either cloning out the artifacts using surrounding clean areas or by using the "blur" tool in Photoshop, then saving at a lower compression level such as 8 or 10. Otherwise another desaturate of the original color and re-save at 10 or 12.

Best regards,

Lin

Lin, Ken,

Please compare the areas I have indicated (taken from the mono versions) with the corresponding colour versions during the change-over.

I'm viewing on a 24" IIYAMA 1920x1200 Monitor from my normal viewing distance of around 3'.

Lin,

You are correct. I'm suggesting that the original JPEG was/might have been a quality 6 JPEG and was then converted to B+W and re-saved (once again) at quality six.

The originals are OK but the second generation saves are overcompressed.

DG

P.S. My examples were saved at quality 12.

[Ken Cox]

Dave

checked where you were looking on my xp svhs output and will give you this one but

ken

[colin hill]

Hi everyone,

Thank you for the comments and the debate on the artifacts. To clarify matters, most of the pictures are my own, and as I said, some were from my Google library.

What I did for the black and white shots, was use photoshop, saved them and used them in the presentation. It is good that members have a keen eye and can point

out small irregularities, which I must admit, I did not notice. Thank you DG for pointing this out. Thank you Lin for the tips which I will blur out on photoshop.

I will take the same pictures and correct in photoshop and see what the result is. I do appreciate everybody's input and debate on this matter.

Thank you,

Regards,

Colin

[davegee]

Colin,

You didn't say what quality level you saved the B+W shots at?

I'm willing to bet that after doing the B+W conversions, if you saved at quality 12, or used Save For The Web you would be able to get away with it.

The beauty of SFTW is that in a two-up configuration you can see exactly what you are going to get.

Ultimately, going back to the RAW file and starting from there is the answer.

DG

[davegee]

Ken,

Sorry, but this sort of thing just hits me in the face!!

DG