wide gamut monitors

[DanK]

Dan, if you haven't read this yet, it explains the pros and cons very well, IMHO.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mon...0_2.html#sect0
.

Ted,

thanks very much

Dan

[ajohnw]

Dan, if you haven't read this yet, it explains the pros and cons very well, IMHO.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mon...0_2.html#sect0
.

Not so in IMHO. The sRGB colour shift on an aRGB monitor is bunkum. It wouldn't be possible to calibrate them to very low error levels if it was true.

John
-

[xpatUSA]

Make a nice change to see a review site that actually measures it.

It looks short of aRGB to me though.

John
-

Sorry, John, it looks about the same to me (CIE u'v' coordinates for the green primary):

Samsung: 0.08, 0.575 (estimated from the DisplayMate diagram).
Adobe RGB (1998): 0.076, 0.576

As to the color shift "bumkum" are you referring to this?

As a result, monitors with an extended color gamut – which is extended relative to the standard sRGB gamut – will distort colors when displaying sRGB-oriented pictures prepared in sRGB-oriented software that does not know anything about non-sRGB monitors. The monitor will just stretch the sRGB-oriented picture out to fit its own gamut. Not only the pure colors, but also halftones will shift. The only exception is white and gray which are going to look correctly on any monitor unless the monitor is set up badly.

If so, could you tell us where the bunkum is located?

[Manfred M]

Found this snippet at the TFT Central site:



http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles...cklighting.htm

As our Bill might have said "it all depends on what the meaning of 'such as' is . ."

Thanks Ted; an interesting read. I seem to remember recently reading about the significant issues with the frequency curves of the LED illuminated displays and how these were not good for photographic work. The upshot of the article (which I can't find right now) suggested it would be quite some time before we got decent colour performance out of LED technology and that CF would continue to be the mainstream light source for the PP crowd.



It doesn't matter to me if I have true 10-bit displays if the colour reproduction is off.

[ajohnw]

Sorry, John, it looks about the same to me (CIE u'v' coordinates for the green primary):

Samsung: 0.08, 0.575 (estimated from the DisplayMate diagram).
Adobe RGB (1998): 0.076, 0.576

As to the color shift "bumkum" are you referring to this?






If so, could you tell us where the bunkum is located?

I didn't take due note of "not knowing". Probably because I would assume anyone who wanted to work in both would have colour management which makes the comments in that area irrelevant.

John
-

[ajohnw]

Colin 'imself didn't disagree with this other than some comments are now dated.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

One other aspect that struck me was the shear quality of commercial lab sRGB printers. Another is the actual tones shown in gamut diagrams. It would be a lot more interesting if the actual shades were shown.

John
-

[xpatUSA]

I didn't take due note of "not knowing". Probably because I would assume anyone who wanted to work in both would have colour management which makes the comments in that area irrelevant.

John
-

Yes, I was just about to edit my post above with an opinion to that effect. All they're doing is repeating the age-old caveat of how non-color-managed 'aRGB' pics look washed out on a sRGB monitor except theirs is back-@sswards i.e. an sRGB image looking over-saturated on an 'aRGB' monitor, for example. So, good, we agree in the end

[ajohnw]

Yes, I was just about to edit my post above with an opinion to that effect. All they're doing is repeating the age-old caveat of how non-color-managed 'aRGB' pics look washed out on a sRGB monitor except theirs is back-@sswards i.e. an sRGB image looking over-saturated on an 'aRGB' monitor, for example. So, good, we agree in the end

Trouble is Ted when I see pages with comments like that I think JUNK. There is too much of it about. It might have been written before colour management was about. For some years I thought aRGB had MORE colours. That was all over the web and still is after a fashion. Manfred does have is 10bit aRGB though and it's a pity all he can do is look at it. Once that changes I will have a lot more interest in that area but I hope it goes to a decent HD TV gamut.

John
-

[Simon Garrett]

Colin 'imself didn't disagree with this other than some comments are now dated.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

John
-

I'm afraid Ken Rockwell's comments are not just dated, but so misleading as to be wrong, IMHO.

I know this stuff.

If he does know this stuff, he hides his knowledge well. As usual, he's more concerned about showing off than about explaining things. He caters for an audience that he assumes can't really handle anything complicated, but will be impressed by his tall stories of how TRW LSI still echoes to the laughter at his jokes.

His article (and the linked article "Color Management is for Wimps") are poorly expressed, highly opinionated and draw quite silly conclusions.

If you don't use colour management correctly then all the problems he described will occur (such as the incorrect colours in his Adobe RGB colour ramp). That's not a reason for not using colour managment.

He's effectively drawing the rather ludicrous conclusion:

If you use the tools incorrectly you get bad results, therefore don't use the tools.

If you're shooting jpeg (as Ken R does) then it's a reasonable choice not to use colour management, provided everything in your workflow is set to sRGB, and you have a "normal gamut" monitor with a colour space close to sRGB. Colours will be roughly right most of the time, but they won't always be accurate. Does that matter? Not necessarily.

If you use colour mangement (and don't screw up, as Ken suggests that he does) then you can benefit from:

• More accurate colour
• More consistent colour
• Potentially a wider colour gamut on devices that support it (e.g. many printers and wide-gamut monitors)
• Fewer "why the heck did it come out that colour?" moments

Colour management reduces the uncertainty: if the colour looks right on the screen, then it is right. You don't need to worry about whether things are set up correctly; colour management takes care of that for you.

It makes things easier, not harder.

IMHO it's beneficial to use colour management even if you're preparing stuff for the web (where it needs to be converted to sRGB before uploading). Here's why: most people don't use colour-managed monitors, so you have no control of what they see on their monitors. But much of the stuff on the web (most professional images) are the right colour, so people get used to how "correct" colours should look on their monitor (even if their monitor is wrong). So your stuff will also look look best even on unmanaged monitors if the colours are "correct".