Control Console

[Kodiak Qc]

•



This is the control console of an automated factory that will be
published in the next annual report of this client company.

This is a typical case of:
"May I help you or do you want to make your own mistakes?"
The floor really has this magenta hue in it — ugly but I can live
with it. It is when the client was in the PP room with me, that he
noticed a variant where I did not colour corrected the "el cheapo"
and disparate makes and ages of the screens they are using…
"I like this one, I like the colours!" he said.

So this collection of blueish to purplish screens is what they'll get.
The client is always right?

 

[David_H]

Nice work Dan. What happened to the top left monitor?

 

[lightshipman]

A lot of screens to lookat, I thought my ship was bad

 

[stupar]

When your OCD kicks in and doesn't like the fact that the monitors are all different

 

[Kodiak Qc]

What happened to the top left monitor?

Thanks and well spotted, David!
That was a colour / density test mask that left on… sorted.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

A lot of screens to lookat, I thought my ship was bad

Right, one for every machine or operation on the plant.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

the monitors are all different

Yes, indeed Stuart.
Uncalibrated monitors of different makes and ages.
That is what the other version (rejected) was trying
to do, at least equalize both brightness and colour.

 

[Harlequin565]

I actually quite like the monitors. It gives a sense of reality to the image - less staged.

It also reminds me of our Network Management Centre back in the day, so I do quite like the whole presentation.

 

[GeeJay57]

It's actually a good idea from an operational viewpoint to have monitors that don't match each other. It helps people that are supervising events to develop a better feel for the control topology.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

It gives a sense of reality to the image - less staged.

It's actually a good idea from an operational viewpoint to have monitors that don't match each other.

From the PoV of a photographer, monitors MUST be calibrated.
I hear what you both say and understand his preference too!

 

[Byker28i]

It's actually a good idea from an operational viewpoint to have monitors that don't match each other. It helps people that are supervising events to develop a better feel for the control topology.

It also never happens after a couple of years of running. Large monitors/TV's die and get replaced, then never match

Wide format works well for that as does the spills of light coming down the walls

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Wide format works well for that as does the spills of light coming down the walls

Thanks, Byker!

 

[Byker28i]

I used to do the product shots for the company I used to work for, which included broadcast and post production setups and panels. To get the details in a darkened room usually meant a long exposure for the kit (sometimes with some clever light painting of edges), and a separate exposure for the screens then composite the two (or more) together.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

To get the details in a darkened room usually meant a long exposure

Here, the exif reads:
D3X + 14mm ƒ2.8 @ f 6.3, ISO 1600. 1/30s for a single take.

 

[ABTog]

Why ISO 1600 and not a longer exposure and reduce the shadow noise?
I think I would have wanted to add some down lighting in the background on the right so that it wasn't so black behind the desk.

Reminds me of the operations centre I was working in last year, that had about 10 screens on the desk (plus a 5 metre wide multiviewer on the wall), but many of them had a KVM with extra machines connected. There was no way you could have a screen for every system we had to use.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Why ISO 1600 and not a longer exposure and reduce the shadow noise?

Are you kidding, Aliatair? The D3X is the next best thing
after the D3S in terms of noise… or do you see noise?
The D3X was used because it has twice the sencel count.

Mind you, had they wish to go for giant prints, I would not
have hesitated to use the much newer D850.

 

[ABTog]

Are you kidding, Aliatair? The D3X is the next best thing
after the D3S in terms of noise… or do you see noise?
The D3X was used because it has twice the sencel count.

Mind you, had they wish to go for giant prints, I would not
have hesitated to use the much newer D850.

I didn't see noise, not at this size, but perhaps I should have said "reduce the chance of shadow noise".

Indoors on a tripod with a static scene, I see no real reason to have the ISO so high.
I was also curious why you used the D3X over the D850.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Indoors on a tripod with a static scene, I see no real reason to have the ISO so high.

A a static scene, yes, but handheld! It was a take I wanted
to make — was not on the brief — and I had no tripod.

I was also curious why you used the D3X over the D850.

Because…

1. the final format is 42 cm exclusive bleeding
2. I tested the D850 for its full DR but not specifically
   for low light conditions.
3. The D850 would have been excessive in resolution
   given the A4 double page layout.