Thread: Side by Side screen comparison: 505 & 700
View Single Post
Old 11-08-2008, 11:14 PM   #78
=X=
Wizard
=X= ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.=X= ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.=X= ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.=X= ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.=X= ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.=X= ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.=X= ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.=X= ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.=X= ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.=X= ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.=X= ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
=X='s Avatar
 
Posts: 3,671
Karma: 12205348
Join Date: Mar 2008
Device: Galaxy S, Nook w/CM7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabound View Post
Not if you spot-meter for the subject instead of the background. Then you will have the correct exposure for the subject, with the background overexposed.
You've definitely missed the point of my previous post as you are taking about how to compensate for the underexpose. I was merely trying to pointing out who inferior CCD vs the naked eye, (via a simple test)

Also you counter argument only further proves my point as you admit the problem is shifted to the background. Where again the naked eye sees the scene without any image loss.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabound View Post
I can only repeat what I already...
Well unfortunately I could not help you understand. My fault really, I just don't feel like getting into the science behind optics and CCDs. It's not an easy topic and unless you have a background in it, justice could not be done in a few posts.


Kind Regards,
=X=
=X= is offline   Reply With Quote