Monitor Gamut Question

[Colin Southern]

So I was walking around thinking about this, and yes, higher contrast ratios are ALWAYS better.

In theory, but it's a bit like saying "a Bugatti Veyron is faster than a McLaren F1 Road Car" in that past a certain point both are "more than adequate". As a case in point if you had a monitor with a 5000:1 contrast ratio next to one with a 10,000:1 contrast ratio, I doubt you'd see any difference. In the real world, most monitors have a useable dynamic range of "only" around 6 stops, which equates to a contrast ratio of "only" 64:1 (generalising, but monitors with 500:1 / 1000:1 are fine for PP).

Most monitors look dark grey when showing a pure black screen.

I know - that's why I mentioned it to you weeks ago in the other thread

The "ideal" is a calibrated monitor;

I've heard that before somewhere

Two calibrated monitors with different contrast ratios will appear visually different if placed side by side (and 9 out of 10 will prefer the higher contrast ratio monitor).

It depends on the contrast ratios of the monitors. It's very much "law of diminishing returns" stuff.

The error in my origional statement was suggesting that profiling/calibrating limits the capabilties of the display rather than setting the monitor to achive its maximum potential.

It's more a case of poor calibration limits the range of values available to the profile.

Calibrating the device will never reduce the performance of the monitor - it simply sets it correctly according to its physical capabilities.

Yes; but for most people it's the other way around in that a uncalibrated monitor reduces it's performance; some can be compensated for by the profile, but others can't (eg blacks that are gray at level 0, or whites that aren't bright enough at level 255)

A high-contrast image displayed on a monitor with a low constrast ratio will end up with blacks merging together, and white merging together visually. A higher contrast ratio (aka dynamic range), will handle this situation with much more grace.

In theory, but this is based on the assumption that there are good and bad monitors out there whereas these days it's more a case of pretty much all modern LCD screens being in the "more than adequate" category with respect to contrast ratios / dynamic range. Looking at the specs, many should be capable of 11 stops (or more) of DR and yet in reality, these don't look any different to those with far more conservative figures; it takes something like a Brightside monitor with localised LED backlighting to produce something where these sorts of dynamic range can actually be seen.

The situation you describe, Colin, is similar to how I had my monitor set before I bought a calibration system. It was very crisp, but I was crushing a lot of my blacks to get that very nice look to it

Which is why I suggested getting a profiler; I didn't think I'd convince you otherwise

[cienfuegos]

I'dlook forward to it.
FYI http://lcdresource.com/widegamut.php

[agaace]

Now this article got me confused completely..

This is why it's best to get a true sRGB monitor if you are editing photos, but a color managed wide gamut monitor is almost as good.

[KentDub]

Now this article got me confused completely..

I think what he is comparing is full gamut ("True sRGB") vs partial gamut ("Wide Gamut"). Modern displays are able to exceed sRGB (quality displays, at least). The article is very specific about the need for a profiling/calibration device in combination with Color Managed software. You won't find any arguments against that here. Even Windows (Vista/7) is color-managed these days. The high-end displays (You can get the HP DreamColor for about $1400-$1600 if you get a deal on it) will hit full AdobeRGB gamut with a 1000:1 contrast ratio. When you're in that league, in combination with a quality camera and quality printer (that can print AdobeRGB), you will see and be able to work with colors that most other people can't. Profile and calibrate the entire setup and you'll have a true "What you see is what you get" from your camera, through your computer/monitor, all the way to your printer.

[cienfuegos]

This is for Agaace:

I was curious about the comment you made about currency difference beteewn the pound and the dollar. You may want to look at The Economist--a Brittish publication--which uses the Big Mac index to compare currency differences. ie how much work is required to earn one pound vs 1$. I don't know currently and The Economist is usually 6 months behind understandably.

The othe comment re sRGB is preferable to a wide gamut set is nuts. Photoshop requires you to define your color space and then images are imported to it. If you have sRGB you will fit it into the color space you use, but the picture will not increase in gamut. Similarly, if you transfer the image to sRGB, you will lose gamut. You will see out of gamut warnings in Photoshop when you specify a color that will not fit. Unfortunatelly, if your monitor has a very poor gamut, you will not notice the difference. I have had trouble getting that information from the manufacturers.

Visualgamut exceeds the best video gamuts and the inturn exceed that of printers. However the best printers can exceed the 72% NTSC (sRGB) gamut. To answer other criticsm of NTSC, the reason NTSC was behind other systems like PAL was because NTSC and televison came out first in the USA and there were compatibility issues with improving it. Current HDTV exceeds specs of any other system. Also, no one uses NTSC in their computers, the comment that was made refered to LCD's color gamut.

[KentDub]

To answer other criticsm of NTSC, the reason NTSC was behind other systems like PAL was because NTSC and televison came out first in the USA and there were compatibility issues with improving it. Current HDTV exceeds specs of any other system. Also, no one uses NTSC in their computers, the comment that was made refered to LCD's color gamut.

I wouldn't call NTSC "behind" PAL. It's format specification was based on a 60Hz (59.94Hz to be more percise) electrical system, whereas PAL is based off of a 50Hz system. NTSC has a higher framerate where PAL has a higher resolution.