Monitor ? UnPlug

[Albert Sim]

We said you need a good monitor in bringing out the colour because..........brah... brahbrah........
We said you need a Monitor Calibration Device so you can bring out the std colour....and brah brqh brah brahhhhh..............!

So if we have the Calibration Device to calibrate and brings out the colour, DO we still need a high-end monitor? Or a cheap one will do?

Please comments.

Cheers.

[Graystar]

The high-end monitor has the ability to display the requested colors (that is, it has a large gamut.)

The calibration allows the software to request the correct colors.

Both are necessary for accurate color rendition.

Whether or not you need accurate color rendition is a different question entirely.

[revi]

Also, high-end monitors have wider viewing angles, as they use a better (but more expensive) technology.
With cheaper monitors, you'll see the image change when moving your head up or down a few centimeters.
And a decent monitor won't cost as much as a camera or lens anyway ...

[Manfred M]

The low end monitors are made so that they can be sold for a low price as most people don't particularly care about colour accuracy. These are made with a technology; TN - twisted nematic, which allows for fast refresh times, which are important when gaming at high frame rates or watching sports, but much less of an issue when working an image in PP. The main problem with TN displays is that they natively display 6-bit colours per channel (18-bit colour) or a total of 262 144 different distinct colours, far short of the over 10 million different colours that the human eye can see. These cheap monitors claim that they are capable of displaying 8-bits per channel, but they get there through emulation, a technique called dithering where the individual pixels are cycled of and on in an attempt to create the colours. The problem of course is that there is very little data (other than in marketing literature from the display manufacturers) to actually demonstrate how well this technique actually works. Different manufacturers likely implement differently. My own view is that it probably exceeds the 262k colours, but unlikely gets close to being anywhere a true 24-bit display.

The higher end displays use some variant of TFT technology, which means that these units natively display at least 8-bits per channel or 24-bit colour, i.e. 16,777,216 distinct colour variations and with dithering in theory 10-bits per channel or 30-bit colour for over 1 billion distinct colours (the caveats on how well this really works still applies).

I run a dual monitor setup with my main display being an expensive high-gamut display and the one I use for holding menus and secondary data being a cheap display. I have calibrated and profiled both displays. The difference in the colour quality is amazing; I would never use the cheap display to do any serious colour work. It is simply not accurately reproducing colours.

[Dave Humphries]

I run a dual monitor setup with my main display being an expensive high-gamut display and the one I use for holding menus and secondary data being a cheap display. I have calibrated and profiled both displays. The difference in the colour quality is amazing; I would never use the cheap display to do any serious colour work. It is simply not accurately reproducing colours.

I would second this, as I run a similar set up (although I haven't bothered to profile, I know I should)

[Mike Buckley]

If you use the wide-gamut display to post-process photos and then show the photos on a typical flat-screen television, am I correct that the television presents a very different image? If I'm right, that would drive me crazy, as I prefer my photos to look approximately the same regardless of the medium.

[Manfred M]

If you use the wide-gamut display to post-process photos and then show the photos on a typical flat-screen television, am I correct that the television presents a very different image? If I'm right, that would drive me crazy, as I prefer my photos to look approximately the same regardless of the medium.

The issue is no different than when posting an image on the internet or emailing some images; I know that the colours are correct and if there is a problem, I know where to look, i.e. I know the problem is not with the images I have posted or sent out. Unfortunately, consumer televisions have no profiling capabilites per se, so you get what you get. Studio monitors, like computer displays do allow some level of calibration, but nothing like what the tools we have for photography can do.

I remember doing a course on colour correction for video a couple of years ago, and some members of the video cooperative that I belong to were totally stunned at the concept of ensuring that the colours come out looking right. There is no equivilent of camera RAW in video, so you do have to colour balance the camera every time the lighting changes.