On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:18:54 +0000, Bill Taylor
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:52:37 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:27:36 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/01/2017 09:52, Iain Churches wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked
better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera
never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the
first place.
Brian

Yes. White balance.


More to do with make-up and lighting, the white balance on the camera
should be neutral.

White balance - and particularly skin tone balance on TV suffered with
the shift from illuminant C (the standard for the delta tube) and
illuminant E which came in with the PIL tube.

???????

The colour reference in broadcast TV was Illuminant D and still was 15
months ago!

Type of display is not really relevant. The phosphors changed over
time but that affects colour gamut rather than colour temperature.

I'm going back a bit. I know the mechanism is the gamut, but what
happens when you have a different gamut in the camera to that on the
screen is that colours don't map properly. For most colours that
doesn't really matter, but for something as well-known as skin tone it
really stands out.

The place this is worst is in shops, where TVs are set to "shop mode".
They colours look like neon signs and the contrast edges are a mass of
ringing in their desperate attempt to look sharp. I don't know how
anyone chooses a TV in a shop.

d