DP2 Screen

kissdadookie · Jun 17, 2009

So, after having used my DP2 for a few days now, I have to ask the following question: What exactly is the complaint about the screen? The refresh rate is acceptable and it's apparently showing an image that is pretty true to the source of a completely unprocessed RAW capture. There's no way to judge the colours of your shot with the screen because apparently it's not showing a processed image. Let me explain what I mean.

When I open a X3F file using SPP, the initial image I see is pretty close to the bland ugly looking thing that I see on the LCD screen of the camera. Then a few moments later SPP does a bit of default processing on the image and suddenly you have a normal looking image. If anything, maybe the software on the camera itself should actually process the image a bit to be displayed on the LCD screen properly?

The LCD is of course with true hardware faults though. First, the resolution is pretty awful but not so bad that it becomes impossible to check for the sharpness of details. Secondly, it is admittidely a little limited in displayable colours as well as not having good visibility in strong sunlight.

polymathic · Jun 17, 2009

It's hard to see in sunlight. It doesn't convey remotely accurate color information, even shooting JPG. Resolution and contrast are poor. And, even at full magnification, it's not possible to tell for sure if a picture is very sharp or somewhat sharp. Anyone used to the screen of a Canon P&S half the price will be disappointed. It is a $650 camera, but the screen is really cheap and hugle. Even fonts don't look good on there.

SandyF · Jun 17, 2009

kissdadookie said:
So, after having used my DP2 for a few days now, I have to ask the
following question: What exactly is the complaint about the screen?
The refresh rate is acceptable and it's apparently showing an image
that is pretty true to the source of a completely unprocessed RAW
capture. There's no way to judge the colours of your shot with the
screen because apparently it's not showing a processed image. Let me
explain what I mean.

When I open a X3F file using SPP, the initial image I see is pretty
close to the bland ugly looking thing that I see on the LCD screen of
the camera.

what you see when the X3F is loading is the embedded JPEG which is in the RAW file. by the way you can extract this JPEG for use as a separate photo, by using the utility on the SPP3.5.1 software. It's called "convert to JPEG" under the File menu tab, I think 5th item down.

kissdadookie said:
Then a few moments later SPP does a bit of default
processing on the image and suddenly you have a normal looking image.

X3F bullet is probably closest to unprocessed. auto (center bullet) is the software's 'suggested' processing, I call it. custom (right bullet) just activates when you change anything.
See the SPP manual on the software; it's under the Help menu.

kissdadookie said:
If anything, maybe the software on the camera itself should actually
process the image a bit to be displayed on the LCD screen properly?

The LCD is of course with true hardware faults though. First, the
resolution is pretty awful but not so bad that it becomes impossible
to check for the sharpness of details. Secondly, it is admittidely a
little limited in displayable colours as well as not having good
visibility in strong sunlight.

I find I can see the DP1 screen much better in sunlight when I take OFF my polarized sunglasses ;-)

Some people have reported success with anti-reflection plastic coating material added to the screen.
My best solution for framing outdoor photo? Viewfinder.

Alternately the grid lines are useful for keeping horizons and/or building lines straight. The DP1 has these gridlines as an option; I assume the DP2 does too. Scroll through the right lower button on the DP1. I'm not sure where this option is located on the DP2.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

Bodoh · Jun 17, 2009

I own a DP-1 but it is the same screen, so I feel I can comment.

What wrong?

It is low resolution, not sharp enough to manual focus, and yes I know about the magnifier. It's got weak pale colours, low contrast, poor viewing angle, can't be seen in daylight. And to really add insult, they didn't improve it in DP2, and even the cheapest cameras have a better screen now. I see lots of excuses on this forum... but nobody should need excuses. It is a cheap display, and not suitable for a product with such pretensions.
--
http://www.pbase.com/knobby

Chunsum J Choi · Jun 17, 2009

I have yet to use a LCD screen that does well in sunlight.

I can tell the sharpness and exposure from it but I don't need to watch a DVD with it. hey, but that's just me.

polymathic said:
It's hard to see in sunlight. It doesn't convey remotely accurate
color information, even shooting JPG. Resolution and contrast are
poor. And, even at full magnification, it's not possible to tell for
sure if a picture is very sharp or somewhat sharp. Anyone used to
the screen of a Canon P&S half the price will be disappointed. It is
a $650 camera, but the screen is really cheap and hugle. Even fonts
don't look good on there.
--

--
http://www.chunsum.com (Website/Blog)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chunsum (Active Gallery)
http://www.pbase.com/chunsum (Archive Gallery)
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr (Sigma Users Gallery)

kissdadookie · Jun 17, 2009

So if that's the embedded JPG, then the embedded JPG matches what is being displayed on the LCD, including colour rendition. So I don't understand how the LCD is not accurate with colours when the embedded JPG is at fault here.

kissdadookie · Jun 17, 2009

Poly, so, you rather have the Canon P&S LCD with a beautiful screen and end up with a picture that is quite a bit off from what is being displayed in the LCD? Nikon's are also some of the worse at doing that. This is beyond what I was describing though. Sandy pointed out that what I see when I open a X3F file with SPP is the embedded JPG, the embedded JPG actually matches what's being shown on the LCD screen. In other words, is the screen really at fault or is it really just a not so good image being used the culprit?

SandyF · Jun 17, 2009

hmm, for curiosity sake, I just looked up the specs on that Oly EP1 so many threads are raving around... LCD screen 230,000 pixels. Checked the DP2 specs sheet, ~~230,000 pixels~~

Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

Bodoh · Jun 17, 2009

True, you are correct, all the P&S's are 230,000 including the EP-1. But that still doesn't make DP1's display look any better. It just means that this camera has one of the worst P&S displays in it. It deserves better. This is one of my main complaints. The way this camera is positioned... it is wrong to give it low quality P&S display.

It's kind of funny in a tragic way, the sensor works best in bright conditions, OK I accept that because it offers other unique benefits. But that's the same conditions where I can't see what I'm shooting! And I can't accept that because there's no excuse for it. Displays are commodity items.
--
http://www.pbase.com/knobby

kissdadookie · Jun 17, 2009

For me, the screen is for composition and checking focus. For exposure, that's what the histogram is for. No matter how good or bad a LCD screen is, exposures should still be checked with the histogram or else you really have no idea if your exposures are a go or a no.

In the case of manual exposure, there's a EV indicator on the lower right to let you know if your over or under exposing. This is in place of the histogram for manual exposure.

SandyF · Jun 17, 2009

I have about the same level of difficulty in seeing my Pentax DSLR screen in bright light as my DP1 and SD14 LCD screens. One solution is that HoodmanLoupe... I have one.. kind of a nuisance to use as I find it flops around..but I used it a lot in Death Valley on the photoshoot.

I tend to not go by the LCD much.. I look at the histogram mainly and did I shoot my feet ooops or is the horizon straight or at a horrible kilter; those I'll delete in the 'field' but mostly I keep everything and then check them on the computer. I really trust the DP1 auto focus... it locks.. it's GOOD.. I have a very high rate of well focused shots...just get that focus screen [ ] on the subject.

And the sunglasses trick is really true (take them off to see the screen... it also helps me to put ON my reading glasses ;-)

I suspect there is a design reason ... such as power/battery usage .. as to the choice of the LCD resolution and functioning. But I don't know this for a fact. Obviously Sigma engineers and designers use the cameras too.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

Bodoh · Jun 17, 2009

Thanks Sandy, those are all helpful, practical suggestions, and I do work around the limitations. But I guess my point is that it's not good enough. I shouldn't need to buy an optical VF, or a hoodman, or that bellows contraption. No should need to make excuses. I expect better for this class of product, you should too. I know better LCD panels can be obtained.
--
http://www.pbase.com/knobby

Laurence Matson · Jun 17, 2009

What colorspace is set in your camera?

kissdadookie said:
So, after having used my DP2 for a few days now, I have to ask the
following question: What exactly is the complaint about the screen?
The refresh rate is acceptable and it's apparently showing an image
that is pretty true to the source of a completely unprocessed RAW
capture. There's no way to judge the colours of your shot with the
screen because apparently it's not showing a processed image. Let me
explain what I mean.

When I open a X3F file using SPP, the initial image I see is pretty
close to the bland ugly looking thing that I see on the LCD screen of
the camera. Then a few moments later SPP does a bit of default
processing on the image and suddenly you have a normal looking image.
If anything, maybe the software on the camera itself should actually
process the image a bit to be displayed on the LCD screen properly?

The LCD is of course with true hardware faults though. First, the
resolution is pretty awful but not so bad that it becomes impossible
to check for the sharpness of details. Secondly, it is admittidely a
little limited in displayable colours as well as not having good
visibility in strong sunlight.

--
Laurence

Never look down to test the ground before taking your
next step; only he who keeps his eye fixed on the far
horizon will find the right road.

Dag Hammarskjold

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/dp1
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd14
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9

kissdadookie · Jun 17, 2009

adobeRGB is the colourspace I'm working in. Regardless, it really seems that the embedded JPG is a very low quality one that is not saturated at all and that is the one that gets displayed on the screen. The number one reason the LCD appears to be horrid is due to the fact that it's so desaturated that it looks almost monochrome but I'm being led to believe (from the first image that shows on the screen when opening a X3F file) that it may actually be due to the actual image being shown on the LCD is that low quality and extremely desaturated image.

SandyF · Jun 18, 2009

kissdadookie said:
adobeRGB is the colourspace I'm working in. Regardless, it really
seems that the embedded JPG is a very low quality one that is not
saturated at all and that is the one that gets displayed on the
screen. The number one reason the LCD appears to be horrid is due to
the fact that it's so desaturated that it looks almost monochrome but
I'm being led to believe (from the first image that shows on the
screen when opening a X3F file) that it may actually be due to the
actual image being shown on the LCD is that low quality and extremely
desaturated image.

I just experimented with my DP1 in aRGB vs sRGB. The LCD screen looks notably 'better' in sRGB than aRGB. Try it.

Ditto in reviewing photos taken in aRGB vs sRGB... sRGB appeared more colorful on the LCD screen.

FWIW, I work exclusively in sRGB so I hadn't known that the LCD screen appears 'worse' in aRGB than sRGB ... both 'live' before shooting and IMHO in reviewing the photo. Maybe this is cause of some of the complaints about the LCD! Colorspace.

Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

polymathic · Jun 18, 2009

kissdadookie said:
Poly, so, you rather have the Canon P&S LCD with a beautiful screen
and end up with a picture that is quite a bit off from what is being
displayed in the LCD?

That's not what I said, and this is just the attitude that makes this forum tedious at times. You asked a question, and I told you why the screen was poor quality from my experience with a DP2, even compared to my cheap canon P&S. I didn't mention anything about pictures quality.

kissdadookie · Jun 18, 2009

You do understand my question was more about if the screen is at fault or if the image is at fault right? Because checking the images after the shot gives me the same ugly looking image as when you open the image up with SPP. Tediuous? If it is tedious, then I suggest you not respond to a thread that tires you. Nothing wrong with that.

LCD screens are generally there for the purpose of usability. Pretty pictures appearing on the LCD (which often does NOT correspond to the actual exposure one has taken) does not add to usability. I brought up the LCD question because it sounds as if people were implying that the LCD screen was not usable when in fact it's works fine. It just doesn't give you the pretty saturated colours of a Canon LCD or that on Nikon units.

If you think about it, the DP2 is a professional tool and it's purpose built. The LCD in this case works fine since anybody who takes care in shooting really pays attention to the histogram for their exposure checks (I would consider the proper exposure to be the number 1 element that needs to be done well followed by composition, a close third is focus).

Laurence Matson · Jun 18, 2009

Then set if for sRGB and see what happens.

AdobeRGB is really for printing. Using it as your in-camera setting may seem like a cool idea, but you will run into problems along the way (the Internet is sRGB, for example) and need to convert.

You can export an image from SPP in many different ways, and that is when you might select AdobeRGB.

Of course, if you want to have all of your images already converted to AdobeRGB for some reason (the colorspace is only a header entry), go ahead and do so in-camera. Just know that your LCD rendition will not be as candy-caned in the old color department.

kissdadookie said:
adobeRGB is the colourspace I'm working in. Regardless, it really
seems that the embedded JPG is a very low quality one that is not
saturated at all and that is the one that gets displayed on the
screen. The number one reason the LCD appears to be horrid is due to
the fact that it's so desaturated that it looks almost monochrome but
I'm being led to believe (from the first image that shows on the
screen when opening a X3F file) that it may actually be due to the
actual image being shown on the LCD is that low quality and extremely
desaturated image.

--
Laurence

Never look down to test the ground before taking your
next step; only he who keeps his eye fixed on the far
horizon will find the right road.

Dag Hammarskjold

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/dp1
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd14
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9

iibo · Jun 18, 2009

The LCD loses some saturation and color accuracy in low light, worse problems IMO than 230,000 vs. 460,000 dots. The live histogram goes a long way to making it a non-issue, but yes, I wouldn't mind an LCD that shows as closely as possible what you'll get. Maybe next time.

kissdadookie said:
So, after having used my DP2 for a few days now, I have to ask the
following question: What exactly is the complaint about the screen?
The refresh rate is acceptable and it's apparently showing an image
that is pretty true to the source of a completely unprocessed RAW
capture. There's no way to judge the colours of your shot with the
screen because apparently it's not showing a processed image. Let me
explain what I mean.

When I open a X3F file using SPP, the initial image I see is pretty
close to the bland ugly looking thing that I see on the LCD screen of
the camera. Then a few moments later SPP does a bit of default
processing on the image and suddenly you have a normal looking image.
If anything, maybe the software on the camera itself should actually
process the image a bit to be displayed on the LCD screen properly?

The LCD is of course with true hardware faults though. First, the
resolution is pretty awful but not so bad that it becomes impossible
to check for the sharpness of details. Secondly, it is admittidely a
little limited in displayable colours as well as not having good
visibility in strong sunlight.

kissdadookie · Jun 19, 2009

Same here. Even the Canon and Nikon screens aren't very suitable since they look great on the LCD but the images do not match up. I wonder when we'll start seeing calibrated LCDs on cameras.

DP2 Screen

Senior Member

Active member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts