Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: fike on December 13, 2009, 03:27:02 pm

Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 13, 2009, 03:27:02 pm
So I have ordered a Dell U2410.  It is the one that claims 96% of the Adobe RGB color gamut.  It also claims to come calibrated from the factory.  I am trying to figure out what that means, exactly.  I haven't seen much difference in the calibration of my current smaller Dell LCD. I understand that LCD calibration is less critical because they have less color variability than CRTs had.  

So, should I just use the standard Adobe RGB color profile and trust that the display is calibrated from the factory.  (I have an Eye One Display 2.)  I have never gotten through the calibration of my current Dell LCD without the calibration software telling me I am way out of spec, but nothing has been able to bring it within spec.  I think I have been working with the wrong gamma settings in the software, but it really hasn't been critical to me and I haven't had the patience to work it through.  I always use paper profiles, some of them custom.  

Any advice, suggestions?
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 13, 2009, 03:30:46 pm
If it's not critical to you and you don't have the patience to do some reading and learning, my advice would be "don't bother".
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: DonCone on December 13, 2009, 05:02:51 pm
Quote from: fike
So I have ordered a Dell U2410.  It is the one that claims 96% of the Adobe RGB color gamut.  It also claims to come calibrated from the factory.  I am trying to figure out what that means, exactly.  I haven't seen much difference in the calibration of my current smaller Dell LCD. I understand that LCD calibration is less critical because they have less color variability than CRTs had.  

So, should I just use the standard Adobe RGB color profile and trust that the display is calibrated from the factory.  (I have an Eye One Display 2.)  I have never gotten through the calibration of my current Dell LCD without the calibration software telling me I am way out of spec, but nothing has been able to bring it within spec.  I think I have been working with the wrong gamma settings in the software, but it really hasn't been critical to me and I haven't had the patience to work it through.  I always use paper profiles, some of them custom.  

Any advice, suggestions?

Mark, I am using a wide gamut Samsung XL24 LED illuminated LCD. And, FWIW, it is a real joy to be able to really calibrate this monitor. I use Eye-One Pro but I think the software is pretty much the same with the Eye-One 2 monitor calibrator. The gamut of this monitor is 120% of the NTSC standard. Believe me if you can use two monitors and view the same image on both, you will see a dramatic difference.

I would never accept a "canned" monitor calibration. Regardless of the illumination type, it will change over time.  if you are a serious printer, you have to caibrate.

Don
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 13, 2009, 05:31:07 pm
Don, if you are commenting on my response, yes of course you are technically spot-on, but the gist of my intervention was more related to a state of mind rather than technique, insofar as the former influences how one approaches the latter.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 13, 2009, 10:39:44 pm
Quote from: DonCone
Mark, I am using a wide gamut Samsung XL24 LED illuminated LCD. And, FWIW, it is a real joy to be able to really calibrate this monitor. I use Eye-One Pro but I think the software is pretty much the same with the Eye-One 2 monitor calibrator. The gamut of this monitor is 120% of the NTSC standard. Believe me if you can use two monitors and view the same image on both, you will see a dramatic difference.

I would never accept a "canned" monitor calibration. Regardless of the illumination type, it will change over time.  if you are a serious printer, you have to caibrate.

Don

Thanks Don,  That is what I was looking for.  I don't have a plethora of displays around to compare.  When I was using a CRT, I noticed a substantial variability.  I didn't know if these new wider gamut LCDs would have similar range of calibration, unlike my older LCD.  I guess I will need to do some experimenting.  I will be keeping the older LCD around as a tools display, but it will give me a good comparison.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 13, 2009, 10:46:33 pm
Quote from: MarkDS
If it's not critical to you and you don't have the patience to do some reading and learning, my advice would be "don't bother".

Hi MarkDS,
it is hard not to take that response as a bit condescending. Try not to assume everyone who questions the value of calibration to a gnats @ss is inexperienced and lacking in knowledge.

I am interested in precision, and I have done a significant amount with calibration of my old CRT, but with my current LCD, I haven't seen the benefit I saw with CRT.  I have been wondering whether with better factory calibration of hardware if the monitor calibration puck will be going the way of the light meter as a quaint but mostly obsolete relic of a bygone era?  (I know the obsolescence of light meters is a controversial issue, so lets not get into that one here.)

thanks,


Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 13, 2009, 11:05:34 pm
No, not a matter of condescending. Put yourself in your readers' shoes. You are asking people to take the time to give you advice when you yourself say the subject matter isn't that critical and you don't have the patience to work through the issues. If you are now saying what you meant is that you were wondering whether calibration and profiling is objectively important with the equipment you have, that is a different and legitimate concern and I agree with Don Cone's response.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 14, 2009, 12:17:59 am
Hi Fike,

I have also reacted to Mark's comment and tried to write a response, but it's not easy. You give very little detail about the problem you have. There are a couple of issues with LCD:s.

1) Almost all are to bright, this is a big problem making prints looking dark.
2) Color temperature should be set to arounf 6500 K
3) Regarding Wide color gamut there used to be settings for different gamuts, possibly not easy to find
4) If you don't use sRGB you probably need to understand quite a few thing about CM.  sRGB is often used as a workaround for not having CM,

Finally, I know that you make good pictures and they are certainly worth some effort learning color management.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: fike
Hi MarkDS,
it is hard not to take that response as a bit condescending. Try not to assume everyone who questions the value of calibration to a gnats @ss is inexperienced and lacking in knowledge.

I am interested in precision, and I have done a significant amount with calibration of my old CRT, but with my current LCD, I haven't seen the benefit I saw with CRT.  I have been wondering whether with better factory calibration of hardware if the monitor calibration puck will be going the way of the light meter as a quaint but mostly obsolete relic of a bygone era?  (I know the obsolescence of light meters is a controversial issue, so lets not get into that one here.)

thanks,
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: tived on December 14, 2009, 04:20:16 am
Quote from: fike
So I have ordered a Dell U2410.  It is the one that claims 96% of the Adobe RGB color gamut.  It also claims to come calibrated from the factory.  I am trying to figure out what that means, exactly.  I haven't seen much difference in the calibration of my current smaller Dell LCD. I understand that LCD calibration is less critical because they have less color variability than CRTs had.  

So, should I just use the standard Adobe RGB color profile and trust that the display is calibrated from the factory.  (I have an Eye One Display 2.)  I have never gotten through the calibration of my current Dell LCD without the calibration software telling me I am way out of spec, but nothing has been able to bring it within spec.  I think I have been working with the wrong gamma settings in the software, but it really hasn't been critical to me and I haven't had the patience to work it through.  I always use paper profiles, some of them custom.  

Any advice, suggestions?

Fike,

I think you need to go do your homework, IMHO the DELL is in the bottom of the WG screens. Your issues with calibrating may have to do with the settings you are trying to apply. There is much to learn and know here. Maybe you can give us all a bit more information.

I hope you find what you are looking for

Happy snapping

Henrik
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Jeremy Payne on December 14, 2009, 08:09:08 am
Quote from: fike
Any advice, suggestions?
Calibrate in a REALLY dark room - or with a towel over the monitor when you do it.  I've found that to be key to getting a good result with my wide gamut LCD.

I found my wide gamut monitor to be VERY sensitive to ambient light when calibrating - far more so than my laptops or other LCDs.  

For my setup, the difference between a profile created in the right conditions and one with even just a bit of stray ambient light is HUGE.

Then, when you are done ... download a trial of Gamutvision and compare your paper profile and your new monitor profile and your old monitor profile and some color spaces like Adobe and PhotoPro and sRGB ... see this stuff, it helps.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 14, 2009, 08:27:12 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi Fike,

I have also reacted to Mark's comment and tried to write a response, but it's not easy. You give very little detail about the problem you have. There are a couple of issues with LCD:s.

1) Almost all are to bright, this is a big problem making prints looking dark.
2) Color temperature should be set to arounf 6500 K
3) Regarding Wide color gamut there used to be settings for different gamuts, possibly not easy to find
4) If you don't use sRGB you probably need to understand quite a few thing about CM.  sRGB is often used as a workaround for not having CM,

Finally, I know that you make good pictures and they are certainly worth some effort learning color management.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks for the advice, Erik.  I have had trouble getting through the contrast settings in the Eye One Match 3 calibration routine.  It would always tell me it was way out of spec.  So, after getting frustrated that I couldn't bring it into the acceptable range with the monitor menus, I would just skip ahead and calibrate anyway.  Your suggestion of using 6500K got me through that step.  Yippee!  The new profile is slightly different, enough to notice and care about.  

I shoot Adobe RGB, so I calibrate to that target.  

Some have mentioned that there are other better options than the Dell, but I have been pretty happy with the Dell LCD I have now, and the prices of the higher-end 24" devices are really in a different strata.  The H-IPS U2410 LCD monitor arrives later this week, I'll need to report back on how I like it.  It will also be interesting to compare it to the 3-year old Dell 20" LCD that was considered a bargain photo-worthy display at the time (sharing the LG LCD display with the apple of the same size).
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 14, 2009, 08:32:49 am
Hi,

One thing to consider is that your screen should not be too bright. If you measure a white area on your screen and a white paper on your wall they should have similar brightness. A screen that is too bright cause you to print dark.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: fike
Thanks for the advice, Erik.  I have had trouble getting through the contrast settings in the Eye One Match 3 calibration routine.  It would always tell me it was way out of spec.  So, after getting frustrated that I couldn't bring it into the acceptable range with the monitor menus, I would just skip ahead and calibrate anyway.  Your suggestion of using 6500K got me through that step.  Yippee!  The new profile is slightly different, enough to notice and care about.  

I shoot Adobe RGB, so I calibrate to that target.  

Some have mentioned that there are other better options than the Dell, but I have been pretty happy with the Dell LCD I have now, and the prices of the higher-end 24" devices are really in a different strata.  The H-IPS U2410 LCD monitor arrives later this week, I'll need to report back on how I like it.  It will also be interesting to compare it to the 3-year old Dell 20" LCD that was considered a bargain photo-worthy display at the time (sharing the LG LCD display with the apple of the same size).
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Jeremy Payne on December 14, 2009, 08:56:10 am
Quote from: fike
I shoot Adobe RGB, so I calibrate to that target.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean ... you shoot RAW, right?

'AdobeRGB' shouldn't enter into the monitor calibration equation except as a point of reference.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 14, 2009, 09:28:42 am
Quote from: Jeremy Payne
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean ... you shoot RAW, right?

'AdobeRGB' shouldn't enter into the monitor calibration equation except as a point of reference.

Yes, I guess you would be correct.  It was important when I used to shoot jpg and Adobe RGB, but in the case of RAW, it is only the monitor reference that truly use Adobe RGB.  

Good Point!
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: digitaldog on December 14, 2009, 09:44:40 am
Quote from: fike
It also claims to come calibrated from the factory.

Calibrated to what? Its kind of ridiculous claim at least taken at the face value provided.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 14, 2009, 09:52:34 am
Quote from: digitaldog
Calibrated to what? Its kind of ridiculous claim at least taken at the face value provided.

They claim it is calibrated to adobe RGB. Reviewers say it isn't really that great, but for better or worse, here is a description.  http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/conten...410.htm#factory (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/dell_u2410.htm#factory)
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: digitaldog on December 14, 2009, 10:12:44 am
Quote from: fike
They claim it is calibrated to adobe RGB. Reviewers say it isn't really that great, but for better or worse, here is a description.  http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/conten...410.htm#factory (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/dell_u2410.htm#factory)

They say “The Dell U2410 comes factory calibrated to some extent“ which again, is a ridiculous comment (enough to bypass a sale IMHO). And no, its not “calibrated” to Adobe RGB (1998) which alone is meaningless and like every other CCFL wide gamut, it can’t hit sRGB with a profile I’ll bet.

Then they say something equally silly (“every unit is shipped incorporating pre-tuned sRGB and AdobeRGB settings and with an average DeltaE of <5“) but don’t tell us which formula is used (again, sloppy and apparently written by a marketing person with little understanding of what they just wrote). And that deltaE is in the center? The corners (which are always worse).

But wait, this is a review! Its not from Dell. It should be dismissed at this point alone.
 
Quote
The Dell U2410 features a dynamic contrast ratio (DCR) control, which boasts a spec of 80,000:1.

Great, and my print is what, 250:1? That makes soft proofing a bit difficult.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 14, 2009, 10:49:09 am
Quote from: digitaldog
They say “The Dell U2410 comes factory calibrated to some extent“ which again, is a ridiculous comment (enough to bypass a sale IMHO). And no, its not “calibrated” to Adobe RGB (1998) which alone is meaningless and like every other CCFL wide gamut, it can’t hit sRGB with a profile I’ll bet.

Then they say something equally silly (“every unit is shipped incorporating pre-tuned sRGB and AdobeRGB settings and with an average DeltaE of <5“) but don’t tell us which formula is used (again, sloppy and apparently written by a marketing person with little understanding of what they just wrote). And that deltaE is in the center? The corners (which are always worse).

But wait, this is a review! Its not from Dell. It should be dismissed at this point alone.
 


Great, and my print is what, 250:1? That makes soft proofing a bit difficult.

Obviously the Dell marketing people got a little excitable on this one, but if you read further in the review you will see that they do debunk this absurd claim, albeit in a considerate and non-inflammatory way.

[blockquote]While the DCR obviously worked to some extent, I've no idea where Dell got the figure of 80,000:1 from! ... I don't know where Dell picked this spec from?![/blockquote]

in the conclusion:
[blockquote]The dynamic contrast ratio was nowhere near reaching its supposed specification...[/blockquote]

As the review points out, the LCD color accuracy is good with custom, at home, calibration, even if the Adobe RGB and sRGB presets are substandard.  

So after asking the question here about the necessity of LCD calibration, I have read what people have to say and some more reviews and the consensus is that, particularly with the more economically priced 24" displays, calibration does result in substantial improvements in color accuracy and consistency.  

It's too bad that they don't have better factory calibration.  If factory calibration were done well, I can see them obsoleting calibration equipment.  I wonder if the manufacturers are under any pressure to improve their calibration quality.  Sometimes early in product development and manufacturing cycle they are still making improvements to quality and yield.  I'm not going to hold out too much hope that this will be the case here.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 14, 2009, 10:58:15 am
Quote from: fike
It's too bad that they don't have better factory calibration.  If factory calibration were done well, I can see them obsoleting calibration equipment.  I wonder if the manufacturers are under any pressure to improve their calibration quality.  Sometimes early in product development and manufacturing cycle they are still making improvements to quality and yield.  I'm not going to hold out too much hope that this will be the case here.

Calibrating and profiling your display depends very much on the ambient conditions in which you are using it, and also to some extent on the media to which you will be out-putting. This cannot be done in a factory. I highly recommend, if you have not done so already, that you borrow or acquire a decent book on colour management - it will really help you going forward. Andrew Rodney's Color Management for Photographers is excellent. Options would be Tim Grey's Color Confidence (less depth but good introductory volume) and Real World Color Management by Fraser, Murphy and Bunting - good on the basics with relatively heavier emphasis on material of interest to pre-press. One doesn't need to become an expert in colour management, but more reading and research at least points you in the direction of knowing what questions to ask, what answers and information you receive makes sense, etc.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: neil snape on December 15, 2009, 01:03:20 pm
Perhaps in the factory they are simply measuring the primaries and burning a mean deviation correction into the firmware at the factory. Doesn't say much about making the monitor correlate to Adobe RGB but it is at least a quality control that should help with inter device agreement, thus canned profiles as random as they can be on different video card's output>
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: digitaldog on December 15, 2009, 01:14:26 pm
Yup, think of the differing effects from just the video system in varying systems.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 15, 2009, 08:50:48 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
Yup, think of the differing effects from just the video system in varying systems.

Okay...so here goes....I thought DVI was a digital link and there was no analog conversion going on between pc and display.  If the signal is pure uncompressed digital, there shouldn't be variability between display cards.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 15, 2009, 09:22:51 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
But wait, this is a review! Its not from Dell. It should be dismissed at this point alone.
 
Quote
The Dell U2410 features a dynamic contrast ratio (DCR) control, which boasts a spec of 80,000:1.

Great, and my print is what, 250:1? That makes soft proofing a bit difficult.

Andrew,
Please explain why a high contrast ratio in a monitor could be a disadvantage. Even if we assume that the 80,000:1 figure is a meaningless exaggeration within the context of practical ambient light conditions, more is better than less is it not?

Having recently acquired a 65", 12th generation Panasonic plasma TV with a claimed 'dynamic' CR of greater than 2 million to 1, I appreciate just how important it is to switch off all the lights in order to see the greater detail within the dark shadows.

In fact, switching off the lights is not sufficient because there are reflections from the light emitted by the TV off the off-white walls and ceiling. I feel that in order to appreciate the full CR capabilities of this set, I would need to paint my walls matte black and have matte black curtains over the windows.

The optional hood for Eizo monitors serves a similar purpose, does it not?
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Neuffy on December 16, 2009, 02:43:50 am
A high contrast ratio is a disadvantage because color (among other aspects of images) is perceived differently depending on contrast. If I am editing an image, it is best that I edit on a display with a relatively close contrast ratio to the predicted print output.

I'm currently editing on a 400:1 display, with an 1100:1 display beside it. Quite simply, the adjustment for soft-proofing is too extreme on the higher-contrast display and I cannot predict as accurately what my prints will look like.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced that having an ultra-high contrast ratio would be a bad thing but for the fact that I personally cannot adjust to such variances quickly enough. That said, I am indeed the one who must use this system and so I therefore wish the contrast ratio shift from screen to print to be relatively mild.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 16, 2009, 08:28:19 am
Quote from: Neuffy
A high contrast ratio is a disadvantage because color (among other aspects of images) is perceived differently depending on contrast. If I am editing an image, it is best that I edit on a display with a relatively close contrast ratio to the predicted print output.

I'm currently editing on a 400:1 display, with an 1100:1 display beside it. Quite simply, the adjustment for soft-proofing is too extreme on the higher-contrast display and I cannot predict as accurately what my prints will look like.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced that having an ultra-high contrast ratio would be a bad thing but for the fact that I personally cannot adjust to such variances quickly enough. That said, I am indeed the one who must use this system and so I therefore wish the contrast ratio shift from screen to print to be relatively mild.

I think you might be confusing the capability of the monitor with the characteristics of the image. If the CR of the monitor is too high for a successful calibration, you can always reduce it. However, the reverse is not possible.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 16, 2009, 09:22:33 am
Quote from: Ray
I think you might be confusing the capability of the monitor with the characteristics of the image. If the CR of the monitor is too high for a successful calibration, you can always reduce it. However, the reverse is not possible.

Ray, I don't think he was confusing anything. It's a pretty clear statement that high contrast is fine, except that it makes softproofing very difficult and in that I think he is right on the money. Let us recall that a primary objective of colour management is predictability from one output device to the other, and for most of us that means a predictably decent match between colour and contrast appearance on display relative to print - if the final output is print. As we well know, the DR of paper is relatvely low because it reflects light. Very high contrast displays falsify the impact of that circumstance and reduce the effectiveness of our colour-managed workflows. I've consistently found that the biggest challenge with colour management isn't the colour, but the luminosity, and resolve it I calibrate for a closer match to the paper, which means considerably warmer, less brightness and contrast than how these units usually come out of the box. It's worked very well for me, on the whole.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: digitaldog on December 16, 2009, 09:33:06 am
Quote
Please explain why a high contrast ratio in a monitor could be a disadvantage. Even if we assume that the 80,000:1 figure is a meaningless exaggeration within the context of practical ambient light conditions, more is better than less is it not?

For the same reason having a 12 stop scene range and a 6 stop capture device is problematic. Or a 10,000:1 display contrast ratio trying to soft proof a print that has a 250:1 ratio.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 16, 2009, 07:39:18 pm
Mark and Andrew,
I think you may have to explain this in more detail. It's not making much sense to me.

You seem to be implying that a monitor with a high contrast ratio will automatically bestow a high contrast upon the image being displayed, as though the contrast of the image is wholly dependent upon the CR spec of the monitor.

As I understand, this is only partly the case, but I'm always open to a persuasive argument. If an image has an inherently low contrast and a low dynamic range, it will appear as such on the monitor irrespective of whether the monitor has a high or a low contrast ratio, provided the monitor has a sufficiently high CR to accommodate the dynamic range of the image

However, the opposite is not the case. If a monitor has too low a contrast ratio, after adjusting brightness to the recommended level for calibration, say 100 nits, then blacks will likely not be black and images will tend to appear washed out.

If two monitors have the same maximum brightness level, the one with the higher contrast ratio would be the one preferred, all else being equal. It's better to have a contrast ratio which is unnecessarily high than one which is not high enough, just as it's better to have a camera with a high DR capability even though for some, or even most applications, that high DR might not be needed.

It is understood that all images have to be processed before printing in order to fit the gamut and the contrast within the limits of the print. Both camera and monitor generally have a much higher contrast and DR capability than ink and paper.

The inherent weakness of the LCD has always been the presence of a backlight which makes it difficult to achieve a good black. For this reason only the best and most expensive LCDs could match the qualities of a moderately priced CRT in which individual phosphors are able to be swithched off completely to render a truer black.

The difference between a monitor with a high CR and one with a low CR, but both having equal maximum brightness, is the ability to separate subtle shades of near black. If that capability of the monitor with the higher CR is of no practical use because of the ambient lighting conditions of your working environment, then no harm done. The issue is, does your monitor lend itself to accurate calibration?

Can either of you give me an example of a monitor which cannot be accurately calibrated because its real and actual contrast ratio is too high? It's understood that there's often a lot of hyperbole going on with CR figures for sales purposes and that one should not always believe such inflated figures.

Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: DaveCollins on December 16, 2009, 08:07:18 pm
You might what to check out the thread Thread on Dell U2410 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39891) .

Without repeating this long thread concerning this monitor, I purchased the monitor and thought it was junk and just mailed it back to Dell. See the thread referenced above for more details and a fairly detailed discussion of alternatives.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 16, 2009, 08:22:02 pm
Quote from: DaveCollins
You might what to check out the thread Thread on Dell U2410 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39891) .

Without repeating this long thread concerning this monitor, I purchased the monitor and thought it was junk and just mailed it back to Dell. See the thread referenced above for more details and a fairly detailed discussion of alternatives.

I saw that, but....well....it arrived today. The color didn't look very good out of the box.  After using the custom color settings and calibrating, it is very good, to my subjective eyes.  If it has a flaw, it is that it is too bright.  I am not sure how to modify my calibration routine to tone it down a bit. (lower gamma setting, perhaps?)  On the other hand, it is gloriously bright and contrasty.  Compared to my old Dell 2007WFP, it is a revelation.  With the two adjacent to one another, the old one looks really dim and perhaps a bit cooler.  I haven't yet figured out how to use two different color profiles, one for each monitor.

I'll need to spend more time with it before I decide if it has any major flaws that I can't live with, but for now, I am content.

The on-screen menu system is far superior to others I have used.  

...And on another note, I have my old 20" widescreen LCD configured in portrait mode (1050 x 1600).  The vertical format is very nice for web work.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 16, 2009, 08:48:49 pm
Quote from: fike
If it has a flaw, it is that it is too bright.  ...................... it is gloriously bright and contrasty.

This is exactly the condition which would make me VERY nervous if the end product of my photographic output were a print - even on the highest DR papers we now have.

Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 16, 2009, 09:07:46 pm
Quote from: MarkDS
This is exactly the condition which would make me VERY nervous if the end product of my photographic output were a print - even on the highest DR papers we now have.

I was just messing with some matte paper soft proofing.  It looks good.  I am printing to matte paper, so it is difficult to be perfect because of the effects of texture.

Hooray!!!  This is my 500th post. It has only taken me 5 years to get 500 posts.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 16, 2009, 09:09:49 pm
When you say it looks good, do you mean what you see on the print with the matte paper looks faithful to what you see on the display? That's the critical issue of course. With matte paper and its lower DR, one needs to be especially careful about display brightness and contrast.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 16, 2009, 10:03:20 pm
Quote from: MarkDS
When you say it looks good, do you mean what you see on the print with the matte paper looks faithful to what you see on the display? That's the critical issue of course. With matte paper and its lower DR, one needs to be especially careful about display brightness and contrast.

Yes, the color balance, highlights, and shadows are faithful between the soft-proof and the paper version.  I closely evaluated (subjectively of course) the highlights and shadows, considering exactly where the shadows finally dissolve fully into black and the last detail I can find. I did the same with snowy white highlights.  I haven't done close color work with it yet, but the winter brown of tree bark can be difficult to reproduce in a neutral way.  The monitor and the paper both reproduce identical and neutral browns.  The print I was working with is here: http://www.trailpixie.net/general/pointy_knob_tra_1.htm (http://www.trailpixie.net/general/pointy_knob_tra_1.htm) .  

So I would chalk-up one satisfied U2410 buyer, though I may not be as OCD as my other photographer/printer brethren, though don't ask my wife about my OCD photographic tendencies.  I carry hyperfocal depth of field charts in my photo bag, and that is just too much for her.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 16, 2009, 10:41:50 pm
Glad you got it all working well for you. The second shot is a nice one.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 16, 2009, 10:53:40 pm
Quote from: Ray
Mark and Andrew,
I think you may have to explain this in more detail. It's not making much sense to me.

You seem to be implying that a monitor with a high contrast ratio will automatically bestow a high contrast upon the image being displayed, as though the contrast of the image is wholly dependent upon the CR spec of the monitor.

As I understand, this is only partly the case, but I'm always open to a persuasive argument. If an image has an inherently low contrast and a low dynamic range, it will appear as such on the monitor irrespective of whether the monitor has a high or a low contrast ratio, provided the monitor has a sufficiently high CR to accommodate the dynamic range of the image

However, the opposite is not the case. If a monitor has too low a contrast ratio, after adjusting brightness to the recommended level for calibration, say 100 nits, then blacks will likely not be black and images will tend to appear washed out.

If two monitors have the same maximum brightness level, the one with the higher contrast ratio would be the one preferred, all else being equal. It's better to have a contrast ratio which is unnecessarily high than one which is not high enough, just as it's better to have a camera with a high DR capability even though for some, or even most applications, that high DR might not be needed.

It is understood that all images have to be processed before printing in order to fit the gamut and the contrast within the limits of the print. Both camera and monitor generally have a much higher contrast and DR capability than ink and paper.

The inherent weakness of the LCD has always been the presence of a backlight which makes it difficult to achieve a good black. For this reason only the best and most expensive LCDs could match the qualities of a moderately priced CRT in which individual phosphors are able to be swithched off completely to render a truer black.

The difference between a monitor with a high CR and one with a low CR, but both having equal maximum brightness, is the ability to separate subtle shades of near black. If that capability of the monitor with the higher CR is of no practical use because of the ambient lighting conditions of your working environment, then no harm done. The issue is, does your monitor lend itself to accurate calibration?

Can either of you give me an example of a monitor which cannot be accurately calibrated because its real and actual contrast ratio is too high? It's understood that there's often a lot of hyperbole going on with CR figures for sales purposes and that one should not always believe such inflated figures.

Ray, as far as I'm concerned, the basic point - especially with an LCD display - is to characterize the device white point, contrast curve and luminosity in a manner that provides the most reliabnle soft-proof of the final print. To do this properly, the display needs to be capable of handling the optimal settings. For example, as I'm printing mostly to Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper, I find that a white point in the range of 5500-5700, gamma of 2.2 or L* and luminance of no more than 110 cd/mm2 does the job nicely. My display has adequate bit depth to show the differentials in shadow detail that will appear on paper. The quality of black on my LaCie 321 is pretty good, and it's not the most expensive display in the neighbourhood, as you most likely know. The key issue in terms of differentiating shadow detail is whether the bit depth is adequate to provide a smooth tonal gray scale.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 17, 2009, 12:24:27 am
Quote from: MarkDS
Ray, as far as I'm concerned, the basic point - especially with an LCD display - is to characterize the device white point, contrast curve and luminosity in a manner that provides the most reliabnle soft-proof of the final print. To do this properly, the display needs to be capable of handling the optimal settings. For example, as I'm printing mostly to Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper, I find that a white point in the range of 5500-5700, gamma of 2.2 or L* and luminance of no more than 110 cd/mm2 does the job nicely. My display has adequate bit depth to show the differentials in shadow detail that will appear on paper. The quality of black on my LaCie 321 is pretty good, and it's not the most expensive display in the neighbourhood, as you most likely know. The key issue in terms of differentiating shadow detail is whether the bit depth is adequate to provide a smooth tonal gray scale.

Mark,
I can't disagree with that, but it doesn't answer the question as to why a monitor could have a CR which is too high for accurate calibration.

Generally it seems to be the case with a cheap display that the CR might seem adequate but the brightness is too high. When one turns down the brightness or luminance to the recommended level of 80-120 nits for calibration, the CR that originally seemed adequate at full brightness suddenly becomes inadequate and the images tend to lack shadow detail. Is this not the case?
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 17, 2009, 01:24:52 am
Fike,

You are Happy? Problems solved?

:-)

Erik


Quote from: fike
Yes, the color balance, highlights, and shadows are faithful between the soft-proof and the paper version.  I closely evaluated (subjectively of course) the highlights and shadows, considering exactly where the shadows finally dissolve fully into black and the last detail I can find. I did the same with snowy white highlights.  I haven't done close color work with it yet, but the winter brown of tree bark can be difficult to reproduce in a neutral way.  The monitor and the paper both reproduce identical and neutral browns.  The print I was working with is here: http://www.trailpixie.net/general/pointy_knob_tra_1.htm (http://www.trailpixie.net/general/pointy_knob_tra_1.htm) .  

So I would chalk-up one satisfied U2410 buyer, though I may not be as OCD as my other photographer/printer brethren, though don't ask my wife about my OCD photographic tendencies.  I carry hyperfocal depth of field charts in my photo bag, and that is just too much for her.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 17, 2009, 08:30:36 am
Quote from: Ray
When one turns down the brightness or luminance to the recommended level of 80-120 nits for calibration, the CR that originally seemed adequate at full brightness suddenly becomes inadequate and the images tend to lack shadow detail. Is this not the case?

No, from my experience it is not the case provided you use a display with enough bit depth to produce a smooth tonal ramp. And it need not cost the sky, but it won't be an el-cheapo either, unfortunately.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 18, 2009, 05:39:26 am
Quote from: MarkDS
No, from my experience it is not the case provided you use a display with enough bit depth to produce a smooth tonal ramp. And it need not cost the sky, but it won't be an el-cheapo either, unfortunately.

Mark,
By enough bit depth, do you mean an 8 bit per channel output? Very cheap LCD monitors are usually 6 bit per channel. Are you saying, if the monitor is specified at 8 bit per channel output, which should be sufficient for 16.7m colors, the contrast ratio specification can be ignored?
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 18, 2009, 08:07:00 am
6 bit gives you 64 levels of tonality per channel. 8 bit gives you 256 levels per channel. That's 262 thousand colours versus 16.77 million colours. Seems pretty clear which spec will give you more tonal separation, and tonal separation is what we want for seeing detail anywhere in the luminosity scale.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 18, 2009, 08:34:36 am
Quote from: MarkDS
6 bit gives you 64 levels of tonality per channel. 8 bit gives you 256 levels per channel. That's 262 thousand colours versus 16.77 million colours. Seems pretty clear which spec will give you more tonal separation, and tonal separation is what we want for seeing detail anywhere in the luminosity scale.

Can't disagree with that, Mark.

So, having established that the monitor is capable of 256 levels per channel we can perhaps ignore the CR spec? Or perhaps we should try to ensure the contrast ratio spec does not exceed that of a glossy print, otherwise it might be difficult to calibrate the monitor for softproofing purposes? Is that correct?
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 18, 2009, 09:12:20 am
OK Ray, I've been talking about the fineness of the steps within the scale, and you're asking about the size of the scale itself. Re the latter, we're trying to relate the contrast ratio of the display with the dynamic range of the print. One can go about this mathematically, empirically, or both together. I simply haven't done the research to relate the numerical specs from one form of output to the other in terms of their impact on comparative appearance. That would be a considerable exercise. I'm not sure either how fruitful it would be.

Most of our displays probably have more potential or actual contrast than most printers and papers can reproduce, hence the challenge is to "dumb down" the former so that image appearance will be reliable relative to printed output. This is something I do with the calibration settings in ColorEyes Display, and then visually compare appearances between monitor and print. It's totally judgmental and totally non-mathematical (in my head, not under the hood where it is only mathematical), but it works pretty well. My waste ratio (discarded material out of the printer) is in the range of 10%, and more often than not this is a result of "pilot error" rather than miscues from the display. Pilot error usually arises because of that inherent difference between the appearance given from transmitted versus reflected light. This can be bridged with appropriate calibration settings and by soft-proofing to a great extent, but not totally, so depending on the image, stuff can emerge from the printer which appears to be less vibrant than it looked on display. Of course if I thought that by changing my calibration settings I could get the waste ratio down further I would do so, but there seems to be a rather narrow range which works for "most" images and reliability deteriorates once I move outside that range in any direction.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: bjanes on December 18, 2009, 09:21:43 am
Quote from: MarkDS
6 bit gives you 64 levels of tonality per channel. 8 bit gives you 256 levels per channel. That's 262 thousand colours versus 16.77 million colours. Seems pretty clear which spec will give you more tonal separation, and tonal separation is what we want for seeing detail anywhere in the luminosity scale.

I would amend Mark's statement to read 6 bits gives a possible 64 levels of tonality, but that is merely the width of the channel and that does not mean that the device can actually reproduce those levels. The situation is similar with cameras. A camera may have a 14 bit ADC, but that does not mean that its dynamic range is greater than in 12 bit mode. With many cameras, the extra bit depth is wasted and is used mainly to digitize noise.

The number of bits determines the potential number of levels, but the distribution of levels in the various zones is also critical. With the linear capture used in digital sensors, most of those bits are wasted in the highlight zones and the shadows are relatively impoverished in levels. The use of a gamma 2.2 tone curve redistributes some of those levels to the shadows where they are needed. For an explanation, see the table on Norman Koren's (http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html) web site. Some users calibrate their monitors to an L* TRC with equal visual perceptual steps between the levels, and this may be slightly better than a gamma 2.2 TRC. In any case, 6 bits is insufficient to reproduce good gradation in the shadows.

Bill
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 18, 2009, 09:25:16 am
Quote from: bjanes
In any case, 6 bits is insufficient to reproduce good gradation in the shadows.

Bill

Thanks for the added dimensions Bill. Extracted above is basically what I was getting at.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 18, 2009, 09:46:04 am
Quote from: bjanes
I would amend Mark's statement to read 6 bits gives a possible 64 levels of tonality, but that is merely the width of the channel and that does not mean that the device can actually reproduce those levels. The situation is similar with cameras. A camera may have a 14 bit ADC, but that does not mean that its dynamic range is greater than in 12 bit mode. With many cameras, the extra bit depth is wasted and is used mainly to digitize noise.

The number of bits determines the potential number of levels, but the distribution of levels in the various zones is also critical. With the linear capture used in digital sensors, most of those bits are wasted in the highlight zones and the shadows are relatively impoverished in levels. The use of a gamma 2.2 tone curve redistributes some of those levels to the shadows where they are needed. For an explanation, see the table on Norman Koren's (http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html) web site. Some users calibrate their monitors to an L* TRC with equal visual perceptual steps between the levels, and this may be slightly better than a gamma 2.2 TRC. In any case, 6 bits is insufficient to reproduce good gradation in the shadows.

Bill
 
Bill,
I have no doubt that 6 bits per channel from a monitor is inadequate for critical photography. The sorts of questions I'm asking are as follows.

(1) Is a 6 bit per channel monitor with a high contrast ratio better than a 6 bit monitor with a low CR?

(2) Do manufacturers of monitors match the bit depth to the contrast ratio so that monitors with a 6 bit output will always have a 'real' CR which is lower than that of a monitor with an 8 bit output?

(3) Do manufacturers of monitors spend resources in producing a higher 'real' CR than is useful for photographic purposes, as a sales technique?

(4) If so, does the higher than useful CR present a disadvantage for calibration purposes in relation to print output?
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ethan_Hansen on December 19, 2009, 07:58:30 pm
-> (1) Is a 6 bit per channel monitor with a high contrast ratio better than a 6 bit monitor with a low CR?

Depends on your use. Most monitors achieve high contrast ratios by having the maximum luminance so high that you need wear sunglasses. LCD contrast ratio is governed by how little light leaks through when all the filters are active (black level) and how bright the backlight is when the filters are turned off (white level). Hitting 1000:1 or higher contrast ratios may well entail a white luminance of at least 200 cd/m2. That's bright.

-> (2) Do manufacturers of monitors match the bit depth to the contrast ratio so that monitors with a 6 bit output will always have a 'real' CR which is lower than that of a monitor with an 8 bit output?

No. 6-bit displays are used instead of 8-bit because it reduces response time. Making higher bit depth displays that are also visually appealing for watching video or action games gets expensive.

-> (3) Do manufacturers of monitors spend resources in producing a higher 'real' CR than is useful for photographic purposes, as a sales technique?

Photography is a niche market. Video games that have extensive dark, muddy scenes can benefit from a screen running at blazingly bright levels. Likewise, working in a brightly lit office environment is easier with a display set to higher luminance than one wants for an extended photo editing session. That said, there certainly is a sales factor at work as well. Judging from the contents of my junk mail folder, bigger numbers are the key to a happy, fulfilling life.

-> (4) If so, does the higher than useful CR present a disadvantage for calibration purposes in relation to print output?

It could well. Dialing down the backlight of a LCD too far usually results in smaller color gamut, increased banding, and other such goodies. Note, however, that the ISO spec for print viewing calls for an illuminance of 500 lux. This translates into a white level of 160 cd/m2 on your monitor for exact matching.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 19, 2009, 11:25:51 pm
Quote from: Ethan_Hansen
-> (1) Is a 6 bit per channel monitor with a high contrast ratio better than a 6 bit monitor with a low CR?

Depends on your use. Most monitors achieve high contrast ratios by having the maximum luminance so high that you need wear sunglasses. LCD contrast ratio is governed by how little light leaks through when all the filters are active (black level) and how bright the backlight is when the filters are turned off (white level). Hitting 1000:1 or higher contrast ratios may well entail a white luminance of at least 200 cd/m2. That's bright.

Good response. So, comparing two 6 bit monitors which are equally bright, which would you prefer, the one with the higher CR, or the one with the lower CR? (Everything else being the same, of course).

Quote
-> (2) Do manufacturers of monitors match the bit depth to the contrast ratio so that monitors with a 6 bit output will always have a 'real' CR which is lower than that of a monitor with an 8 bit output?

No. 6-bit displays are used instead of 8-bit because it reduces response time. Making higher bit depth displays that are also visually appealing for watching video or action games gets expensive.

The one with the higher CR would still be preferred for the nich market of photography, no?

Quote
-> (3) Do manufacturers of monitors spend resources in producing a higher 'real' CR than is useful for photographic purposes, as a sales technique?

Photography is a niche market. Video games that have extensive dark, muddy scenes can benefit from a screen running at blazingly bright levels. Likewise, working in a brightly lit office environment is easier with a display set to higher luminance than one wants for an extended photo editing session. That said, there certainly is a sales factor at work as well. Judging from the contents of my junk mail folder, bigger numbers are the key to a happy, fulfilling life.

Nevertheless, it would always be preferable for purposes of the niche market of photograhy to get the monitor with the higher CR, all else being equal, would it not?

Quote
-> (4) If so, does the higher than useful CR present a disadvantage for calibration purposes in relation to print output?

It could well. Dialing down the backlight of a LCD too far usually results in smaller color gamut, increased banding, and other such goodies. Note, however, that the ISO spec for print viewing calls for an illuminance of 500 lux. This translates into a white level of 160 cd/m2 on your monitor for exact matching.

Dialling down the backlight may be necessary if the screen is too bright. Contrast ratio is a different spec from luminance brightness. If two monitors have equal maximum luminance brightness, but one has a higher contrast ratio, which would you prefer? (All else being equal).
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 19, 2009, 11:33:39 pm
Quote from: MarkDS
Thanks for the added dimensions Bill. Extracted above is basically what I was getting at.


Hey! Mark,

We all know here that 6 bits per channel is not ideal for photography. The issue is 'contrast ratio' and any disadvantages a specific and particularly high contrast ratio may have for photography and calibration purposes.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: bjanes on December 20, 2009, 06:36:46 am
Quote from: digitaldog
For the same reason having a 12 stop scene range and a 6 stop capture device is problematic. Or a 10,000:1 display contrast ratio trying to soft proof a print that has a 250:1 ratio.
On the other hand, one would have no trouble reproducing a 6 stop scene with a 12 stop capture device, provided that the 12 stop device uses enough bits to get smooth gradation of tones. This reverse analogy is more appropriate to the case being discussed here. Certainly, 8 bits would be insufficient to prevent banding with a CR of 10,000:1. In the case of a 12 stop capture device, one would likely want to use some type of HDR Encoding (http://www.anyhere.com/gward/hdrenc/hdr_encodings.html). A CR of 10,000:1 is about 13.3 stops.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 20, 2009, 10:30:57 am
Quote from: Ray
Hey! Mark,

We all know here that 6 bits per channel is not ideal for photography. The issue is 'contrast ratio' and any disadvantages a specific and particularly high contrast ratio may have for photography and calibration purposes.

Let us assume as Andrew says that the contrast ratio of a print from a specific printer/paper combination is 250:1. Your display has a contrast ratio of 500:1. Firstly, from the point of view of appearance, I'm not sure whether the human eye/brain would perceive the display to be twice as contrasty as the print. One needs to get that relationship settled before being able to quantify much else with any precision. Secondly, if the display has a higher DMax than the paper there will be a limitation to the accuracy of soft-proofing, insofar as depending on the bit depth, display quality etc. there may be more deep shadow detail from the display than in the print, the display black would look darker than the print black and the display white whiter than paper white (depending on display temperature) absent soft-proofing. When we soft-proof with "Simulate Paper Color" and BPC checked, the purpose is to bridge these perceptual gaps by displaying the output-related portion of the luminance range, hence I would think the appropriate contrast ratio and display settings depends essentially on which calibration parameters provides the most successful and reliable soft-proof. Logically one would think the results will be more reliable with lower rather than higher contrast ratio in the display, given what the printer/paper can reproduce. I couldn't put specific numbers to it, and those numbers would vary depending on the image and the output characteristics. Not having tried to quantify these relationships, I depend on a combination of logic and looking at inputs and outputs, and calibrate my display accordingly.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Neuffy on December 20, 2009, 11:26:28 am
Quote from: Ethan_Hansen
-Hitting 1000:1 or higher contrast ratios may well entail a white luminance of at least 200 cd/m2. That's bright.
That's usually the problem. Turns out, though, that my couple-years-old MVA Westinghouse 24" is calibrated to 1300:1 at 124cd/m^2. Utterly unexpected, and I didn't have the equipment to measure it until recently. IPS panels don't do nearly as well for contrast.

Regarding contrast: It seems to me, as long as one is calibrating with a Hardware LUT of sufficient bit depth (eg. ~10), a high contrast ratio could simply be calibrated away if it was not desired.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: digitaldog on December 20, 2009, 02:05:29 pm
[quote name='MarkDS' date='Dec 20 2009, 08:30 AM' post='334270']
Firstly, from the point of view of appearance, I'm not sure whether the human eye/brain would perceive the display to be twice as contrasty as the print.
Quote

I don’t know that it would appear twice as contrasty but I’m pretty darn sure, they wouldn’t match/

Currently we have two ways to attempt to simulate the contrast ratio on screen. Soft proof using the simulate options which are problematic because Adobe (no one) can as yet, control the “paper white” or “ink black” of the UI. Meaning you’re going to have to view in full screen mode with everything but the image under simulation blacked out (or as LR does, using Lights out). The other way, or in combination of the above which I suspect is necessary, alter the contrast ratio of the display itself. My take is, the more you do in the later, the less that needs to be accomplished in the former. So having the ability to control the display contrast ratio seems useful and probably why the high end reference displays have provided this since (if memory serves me), Sony Artisan (I don’t recall being able to do this in the old days on my Barco).

Better still, the ability to calibrate numerous contrast ratio’s for the type of print work you are currently soft proofing and being able to update this (and the matted ICC display profile), on the fly.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: bjanes on December 20, 2009, 10:46:58 pm
Quote from: MarkDS
Let us assume as Andrew says that the contrast ratio of a print from a specific printer/paper combination is 250:1. Your display has a contrast ratio of 500:1.
It is not necessary to use the full contrast ratio of the monitor. For example, consider an idealized print such as used for the ICC PRMG (http://www.color.org/v4_prmg.xalter). That print has a 288:1 dynamic range, having a neutral reflectance of 89% and a darkest printable colour having a neutral reflectance of 0.30911%. If the print is viewed under the recommended illuminance of 500 lux and behaves as a Lambertian reflector, the paper base would have a reflected luminance of 500*0.89/Pi = 141 cd/m2. The darkest printed color would have a reflected luminance of 0.5.

To reproduce the print as best as possible on the screen, one could calibrate the white point of the monitor to 141 cd/m2 and the black point to 0.5 cd/m2. The effective contrast ratio of the monitor would then be 282:1. Reflective and emissive sources may be perceived somewhat differently, but I would think the match would be reasonably close.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 21, 2009, 09:25:14 am
Quote from: bjanes
It is not necessary to use the full contrast ratio of the monitor. For example, consider an idealized print such as used for the ICC PRMG (http://www.color.org/v4_prmg.xalter). That print has a 288:1 dynamic range, having a neutral reflectance of 89% and a darkest printable colour having a neutral reflectance of 0.30911%. If the print is viewed under the recommended illuminance of 500 lux and behaves as a Lambertian reflector, the paper base would have a reflected luminance of 500*0.89/Pi = 141 cd/m2. The darkest printed color would have a reflected luminance of 0.5.

To reproduce the print as best as possible on the screen, one could calibrate the white point of the monitor to 141 cd/m2 and the black point to 0.5 cd/m2. The effective contrast ratio of the monitor would then be 282:1. Reflective and emissive sources may be perceived somewhat differently, but I would think the match would be reasonably close.

That sounds like a very useful approach Bill. Reading that ICC reference, it appears to be a "virtual print", the file for which I could not find. How representative do you think this would be given the large variety of image characteristics and printer/paper combinations we need to deal with - would you say this is a good protrayal of approximate boundary conditions? And from what you are saying here we need not worry about the contrast ratio of our displays as long as they are at least 288:1 and we calibrate properly according to these calculations?
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 21, 2009, 10:27:37 am
Quote from: bjanes
It is not necessary to use the full contrast ratio of the monitor. For example, consider an idealized print such as used for the ICC PRMG (http://www.color.org/v4_prmg.xalter). That print has a 288:1 dynamic range, having a neutral reflectance of 89% and a darkest printable colour having a neutral reflectance of 0.30911%. If the print is viewed under the recommended illuminance of 500 lux and behaves as a Lambertian reflector, the paper base would have a reflected luminance of 500*0.89/Pi = 141 cd/m2. The darkest printed color would have a reflected luminance of 0.5.

To reproduce the print as best as possible on the screen, one could calibrate the white point of the monitor to 141 cd/m2 and the black point to 0.5 cd/m2. The effective contrast ratio of the monitor would then be 282:1. Reflective and emissive sources may be perceived somewhat differently, but I would think the match would be reasonably close.
Interesting.  I have a NEC P-221 and SpectraView software.  The software allows you to set the white point and contrast ration but not the black point.  I can adjust the contrast ratio and perhaps that would effect the black point.  When I first got the monitor and software I didn't pay much attention to the contrast ratio allowing it to be set at the maximum.  I found that there was a pretty significant mismatch when using the full contrast and changed the setting to 450:1.  From the ICC site it looks like I might be able to go a bit lower.  I'll try that the next time I calibrate and see what the black point ends up being.  I do have a lower white point than above because of the lighting in my "work room."  Very useful reference and thanks for posting.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: digitaldog on December 21, 2009, 12:35:36 pm
Quote from: Alan Goldhammer
The software allows you to set the white point and contrast ration but not the black point.

When you ask for a specific contrast ratio, the software is adjusting the black point (and luminance) to hit that desired target (as close as possible while still maintaining the other target calibration aim points like the cd/m2 you asked for).
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: bjanes on December 21, 2009, 12:35:59 pm
Quote from: MarkDS
That sounds like a very useful approach Bill. Reading that ICC reference, it appears to be a "virtual print", the file for which I could not find. How representative do you think this would be given the large variety of image characteristics and printer/paper combinations we need to deal with - would you say this is a good protrayal of approximate boundary conditions? And from what you are saying here we need not worry about the contrast ratio of our displays as long as they are at least 288:1 and we calibrate properly according to these calculations?

Mark, if you look at the white paper by Karl Lang (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf) on the Adobe site, the best photographic or inkjet prints can have a CR of 275:1, but more typically 250:1. Of course, matt papers will have a lower DMax. My post was more in the order of a thought experiment and I haven't done such a calibration as I can not adjust the black point of my monitor. I would think that a monitor that displays an accurate rendering of the image at a CR of 288:1 would be adequate for soft proofing, but I would like to hear from Ethan Hansen or others who have actual experience in this area. Until someone convinces me otherwise, I think that a high CR is an advantage for a monitor.

Bill
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 21, 2009, 02:11:30 pm
Thanks Bill - yes Karl's paper is an excellent reference. I've had it from the time it was issued. I wonder if his numbers would change with the latest crop of Epson printers and baryta-base papers.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 21, 2009, 03:48:39 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
When you ask for a specific contrast ratio, the software is adjusting the black point (and luminance) to hit that desired target (as close as possible while still maintaining the other target calibration aim points like the cd/m2 you asked for).
That's what I figured after reading the documentation.  Right now I have the contrast set at 450:1 which makes the black point about 1/2 of what is suggested in the ICC article previously posted.  I'll back the contrast down some and see what happens.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ethan_Hansen on December 21, 2009, 05:39:54 pm
Quote from: bjanes
Mark, if you look at the white paper by Karl Lang (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf) on the Adobe site, the best photographic or inkjet prints can have a CR of 275:1, but more typically 250:1. Of course, matt papers will have a lower DMax. My post was more in the order of a thought experiment and I haven't done such a calibration as I can not adjust the black point of my monitor. I would think that a monitor that displays an accurate rendering of the image at a CR of 288:1 would be adequate for soft proofing, but I would like to hear from Ethan Hansen or others who have actual experience in this area. Until someone convinces me otherwise, I think that a high CR is an advantage for a monitor.

Print contrast ratios depend on the ink set, printer (and driver), and paper used. Typical values for pigment ink printers range from 200:1 for high gloss stocks to 150:1 for lustre, semi-gloss, and satin, down to 40:1 and below for fine art papers. A few specialized stocks - usually polyester surfaces made for point-of-sale displays - can hit 400:1 or above. Dye ink printers achieve slightly higher DMax and, therefore, print contrast values than do pigment inks.

Silver-halide printers offer print contrast ranging between ~100:1 to 50:1 on standard surfaces depending on how much of the manufacturer's color management software is enabled. Specialized papers such as metallic stocks are usually 40:1 or below because of the less-than-white paper surface.

In actual use, I have not found the need to reduce monitor contrast in the interest of print matching unless working with prints made on very low contrast paper (examples below). Instead, use Photoshop's soft proofing tools and train your eyes to interpret what they show. Simulate Black Ink helps determine if your shadow details wil show up in print. If not, adjust. The Paper Color simulation does the same for highlights.

As Andrew mentioned above, the simulations are not exact. Your eyes "white balance" themselves to the brightest element in your central field of view. These include palettes, docks, taskbars, menus, or other UI elements unless you view the image in full screen mode or use a multiple monitor setup. Without distractions, the matching between print and screen can be very good. Do not make major tonal adjustments to the image with the simulation enabled until you have the chance to compare a variety of prints to what Photoshop displays. There is no point in trying to edit out a simulation artifact.

If, however, you are printing to a comparatively low contrast surface, reducing your monitor contrast can assist in previewing what you will see in print. You definitely do not want to match the print contrast. Doing so will make your monitor impossible to work on. When using a paper with maximum contrast in the 40:1 range (Epson's Hot and Cold press fine art papers, most satin or glossy canvases, Hahnemuhle Photo Rags or Bamboo, etc.) reducing your monitor contrast to 150:1 to 200:1 is useful. Standard Matte papers or matte canvases (CR of 30-35:1) the lower end of the range is more useful. For jobs destined for newsprint (CR of 6:1 if you're lucky), I'll go to a monitor CR of 100:1. Lower and you simply can not see enough to work. Don't do this on a laptop - even the best screens pose enough problems already.

What printer you use is also a factor. For example, Epson's desktop printers (e.g. 2400, 2880) still do not use the same quality ink linearization and limiting algorithms as do their wide format brethren. Our data, Epson's canned profiles, and even Andrew & Co's PixelGenius Exhibition Fiber profiles all show the desktop models producing ~20% lower print contrast on a given paper than do the wide format printers. A quick comparison of grayscale step wedges shows why. Poor linearization on the desktop printers, decent to very good linearization with the wide formats.

Semi-related note to Andrew: Somebody goofed with the PixelGenius profile labeling. The 7800 and 9800 profiles are for the same printer and the 7880 and 9880 profiles are identical as well. The other profiles all look reasonable.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: digitaldog on December 21, 2009, 06:03:54 pm
Quote from: Ethan_Hansen
Semi-related note to Andrew: Somebody goofed with the PixelGenius profile labeling. The 7800 and 9800 profiles are for the same printer and the 7880 and 9880 profiles are identical as well. The other profiles all look reasonable.

Yes, you can use the 7800 on the 9800 or vise versa but we were asked to supply a single named profile for each from the client.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ethan_Hansen on December 21, 2009, 06:46:23 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
Yes, you can use the 7800 on the 9800 or vise versa but we were asked to supply a single named profile for each from the client.

Weird that they would have you make profiles for each individual printer in the lineup except for the 7xxx/9xxx pairs. Ah well, I have long since given up trying to make sense of Epson's decisions...
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 22, 2009, 01:28:47 am
Quote from: Ethan_Hansen
Print contrast ratios depend on the ink set, printer (and driver), and paper used. Typical values for pigment ink printers range from 200:1 for high gloss stocks to 150:1 for lustre, semi-gloss, and satin, down to 40:1 and below for fine art papers. A few specialized stocks - usually polyester surfaces made for point-of-sale displays - can hit 400:1 or above. Dye ink printers achieve slightly higher DMax and, therefore, print contrast values than do pigment inks.

Silver-halide printers offer print contrast ranging between ~100:1 to 50:1 on standard surfaces depending on how much of the manufacturer's color management software is enabled. Specialized papers such as metallic stocks are usually 40:1 or below because of the less-than-white paper surface.

Interesting that Andrew did not contest these figures. If the figures are true, then I'm seriously wondering if print media is the best method of displaying one's artistic efforts.

I mentioned earlier that I recently took delivery of a 65" Panasonic 12th generation Plasma display. My new house isn't ready for it, but this TV is currently in very short supply, so I bought the last one available in Australia (as far as I know). They're even out of stock of these TVs in New York, apparently.

This plasma set boasts a native contrast ratio of 40,000:1, a 'dynamic' contrast ratio (whatever that means) of 'greater than' 2,000,000:1, and 6144 gradations per channel amounting to 231 billion possible colors.

There's a particular moonlight shot I took a while ago with my 5D, that is problematic. The shadows are rather noisy and the prints I've made so far do not show the full detail in the darkest shadows, just as my calibrated monitor in proof mode does also not show detail in those deepest shadows.

In other words, there's no mismatch between print and monitor with proof colors enabled. Both the print and monitor lack that 'wow' factor. With proof colors unticked, the image on the monitor looks much better than the print.

I cropped this image to 16:9 ratio, converted to sRGB, reduced the file size to 6mb, transferred the image to an SD card and displayed it on my new plasma TV (which has a slot to accept SD cards). It was evening and I turned off all lights.

Wow! Wow! Wow! Phwoar! I've never seen such delicious and detailed blacks before. Just amazing! If I wasn't so modest I'd claim this is the best photograph I've ever seen. Sorry that most of you will not be able to appreciate it in it's full glory as I can.

Here's the full 2 megapixel HD shot. If you don't like it, tough!

[attachment=18824:01_3723_...filtered.jpg]
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ethan_Hansen on December 22, 2009, 03:31:03 am
Quote from: Ray
Interesting that Andrew did not contest these figures. If the figures are true, then I'm seriously wondering if print media is the best method of displaying one's artistic efforts.

Why would he contest them? If you don't believe our numbers (after all we have only built about 25000 profiles for silver-halide printers, many thousands of inkjet profiles, and even profiled 250 individual Epson 7880 printers), you can check the canned profiles provided by pritner and media vendors. I mentioned several Epson papers -- let's check them. Epson has profiles for their newer papers available for download (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Pro/ICCProfilesAll.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes) without requiring you to install a printer driver. Most of these profiles were built with MonacoProfiler; using the profile black and white point values will get you very close to the actual print contrast. MP uses the measured paper white and RGB = (0, 0, 0) values for the profile wtpt and bkpt data.

Using the 4880 as an example -- I chose the 2880 dpi output mode for consistency (except for canvas where 1440 is the higfhest dpi) -- we get:

               Paper           Print Contrast
     ----------------------------------
     Hot Press Bright         45:1
     Hot Press Natural        43:1
     Cold Press Bright        44:1
     Cold Press Natural       42:1
     Premium Canvas Matte     36:1
     Premium Canvas Satin     41:1
     Exhibition Fiber        218:1

As to whether a print is the best output medium, this is a debate that has raged since the advent of photography. In the pre-digital era, many a photographer's head shook n dismay when comparing a dull print to the glory of a slide viewed with a loupe on a light box. Prints make sharing easier, however.

Quote from: Ray
This plasma set boasts a native contrast ratio of 40,000:1, a 'dynamic' contrast ratio (whatever that means) of 'greater than' 2,000,000:1, and 6144 gradations per channel amounting to 231 billion possible colors.
<<SNIP>>
Wow! Wow! Wow! Phwoar! I've never seen such delicious and detailed blacks before. Just amazing! If I wasn't so modest I'd claim this is the best photograph I've ever seen. Sorry that most of you will not be able to appreciate it in it's full glory as I can.

Digital signage is becoming more common. Mainly because one is no longer limited to stills, and even they can be switched regularly. Improved image pop does not hurt either.

Edit: I exaggerated in the numbers above. We have only built 24097 profiles for silver-halide printers.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 22, 2009, 04:29:31 am
Quote from: Ethan_Hansen
As to whether a print is the best output medium, this is a debate that has raged since the advent of photography. In the pre-digital era, many a photographer's head shook n dismay when comparing a dull print to the glory of a slide viewed with a loupe on a light box. Prints make sharing easier, however.


Okay! I take your point. It's just that your figures for print CR seemed even lower than Andrew's.

The debate might have been raging for ages as to print versus slide show, but there's now a new display on the market which is far better (but not necessarily bigger) than either a slide show or a digital projector.

It's the Panasonic plasma display with an SD card slot, which 'knocks the socks' off everything else, including both print and projected slide show.

Slide shows were always a PITA. There was a risk of the cartridge jamming, the bulb fusing, and the inconvenience of the set-up procedures of screen and projector.

That's all now gone. As regard camera bodies, I need nothing more than a D3s. But lenses are a problem. (In fact, I possibly need nothing more than an upgrade to the Canon 3mp D30 with even lower high-ISO noise then the Nikon D3s, for personal requirements, although the higher resolution image may be necessary for sales.)
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: bjanes on December 22, 2009, 09:00:07 am
Quote from: Ray
I cropped this image to 16:9 ratio, converted to sRGB, reduced the file size to 6mb, transferred the image to an SD card and displayed it on my new plasma TV (which has a slot to accept SD cards). It was evening and I turned off all lights.

Wow! Wow! Wow! Phwoar! I've never seen such delicious and detailed blacks before. Just amazing! If I wasn't so modest I'd claim this is the best photograph I've ever seen. Sorry that most of you will not be able to appreciate it in it's full glory as I can.

Here's the full 2 megapixel HD shot. If you don't like it, tough!

[attachment=18824:01_3723_...filtered.jpg]

Ray,

That is a striking and beautiful shot. Is the moon in this image taken with a telephoto lens real? The rays of light emanating from the moon look real.

Bill
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 23, 2009, 06:03:12 am
Quote from: bjanes
Ray,

That is a striking and beautiful shot. Is the moon in this image taken with a telephoto lens real? The rays of light emanating from the moon look real.

Bill

Bill,
I wondered if someone would notice this   . As far as I remember, that's how the moon looked when I took the shot. But the dynamic range (or SBR) of this scene was so high and the exposures so long that bracketing of exposures was not successful for merging to HDR.

This particular shot was 30 seconds at F10 and ISO 800. The moon just wouldn't remain still for me, so I took a separate shot of the moon on another night, selected it and copied and pasted into the original scene.

You see I'm just not willing to misrepresent what I saw just because nature will not keep still, or because my camera has insufficient DR   .
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 23, 2009, 10:22:04 am
I noticed it too, have had the same kind of problem, knew you had most probably layered it in, and I have absolutely no qualms about doing stuff like that - it is simply overcoming a technical limitation in order to portray the scene as the photographer saw it. The only requirement is that it be done unobtrusively so that it would be "un-noticed" as much as possible. In this regard, I think a bit more smoothing around the circle (so that it all blends more seamlessly) would be a nice finishing touch.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 23, 2009, 01:46:38 pm
I made a version of this shot using the same technique.  I spent a lot of time with HDR and blending layers and such, but those techniques just didn't work. The easiest/best thing to do was take another moon shot and scale it to fit on top.  I love your shot, but I just couldn't publicly present my shot with the layered moon effect.  It didn't fit with my photographic style.  

I don't think the noise in the shadows is bad.  It makes it feel a bit painerly.  Otherwise, I think if you darkened that section, it would make it easier to blend the noise away.  I presume that the noise comes from boosting the shadows a lot.  


Trailpixie.net: Singing Moon  (http://www.trailpixie.net/general/singing_moon.htm)
(http://www.trailpixie.net/Bald-Knob-50D-9944-HDR-1-Panorama-S.jpg)
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 23, 2009, 02:01:56 pm
Quote from: MarkDS
I noticed it too, have had the same kind of problem, knew you had most probably layered it in, and I have absolutely no qualms about doing stuff like that - it is simply overcoming a technical limitation in order to portray the scene as the photographer saw it. The only requirement is that it be done unobtrusively so that it would be "un-noticed" as much as possible. In this regard, I think a bit more smoothing around the circle (so that it all blends more seamlessly) would be a nice finishing touch.

Good point, Mark. As it stands, I think the moon is perhaps a little too surreal. I think I'll try reworking it yet again, but so far this version seemed the best out of several attempts, which is perhaps a testament to my poor skills in Photoshop.

The extent of the brightness range in this scene did surprise me. A correct exposure for the moon is pretty close to a daylight exposure, whereas much of the rest of the scene is plain night.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 23, 2009, 02:20:45 pm
Quote from: fike
I made a version of this shot using the same technique.  I spent a lot of time with HDR and blending layers and such, but those techniques just didn't work. The easiest/best thing to do was take another moon shot and scale it to fit on top.  I love your shot, but I just couldn't publicly present my shot with the layered moon effect.  It didn't fit with my photographic style.  

I don't think the noise in the shadows is bad.  It makes it feel a bit painerly.  Otherwise, I think if you darkened that section, it would make it easier to blend the noise away.  I presume that the noise comes from boosting the shadows a lot.

Marc,
That's pretty much how the moon looked in my shot. I could darken the shadows, but this was a moonlit night and those shadows were not completely devoid of detail.

I have noticed on my plasma display that the noise in the shadows seems less prominent, I presume because the true blacks (ie. areas devoid of detail) really are blacker than they appear on my calibrated monitor.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: fike on December 23, 2009, 02:40:00 pm
Quote from: Ray
Marc,
That's pretty much how the moon looked in my shot. I could darken the shadows, but this was a moonlit night and those shadows were not completely devoid of detail.

I have noticed on my plasma display that the noise in the shadows seems less prominent, I presume because the true blacks (ie. areas devoid of detail) really are blacker than they appear on my calibrated monitor.

Try making an hue and saturation adjustment layer and desaturating the noisy areas in the red, magenta, and blue channels.  Mask the adjustment and paint it in with a soft edged brush with a low transparency.  That will take some of the edge off the chroma noise without eliminating the detail.

As for toning down the moon, take the layer that the moon is in and set the transparency to something like 80%.  That will blend it a bit better by allowing some of the bright background layer to slip through.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Ray on December 23, 2009, 03:15:22 pm
Quote from: fike
Try making an hue and saturation adjustment layer and desaturating the noisy areas in the red, magenta, and blue channels.  Mask the adjustment and paint it in with a soft edged brush with a low transparency.  That will take some of the edge off the chroma noise without eliminating the detail.

As for toning down the moon, take the layer that the moon is in and set the transparency to something like 80%.  That will blend it a bit better by allowing some of the bright background layer to slip through.


Thanks for the advice. I'll try that when I have the time, but I don't think I could ever make a print that would look as splendid as this shot looks on my plasma TV, nor as big using my 24" wide Epson 7600. I think my printer might now be relegated to the production of long, stitched panoramas which tend to look less impressive on a 16:9 screen with major bars top and bottom.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: WombatHorror on July 11, 2010, 02:41:41 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

One thing to consider is that your screen should not be too bright. If you measure a white area on your screen and a white paper on your wall they should have similar brightness. A screen that is too bright cause you to print dark.

Best regards
Erik

One thing to keep in mind though is that considering how much printing costs and that they can't show as great or realistic a range of brightness, that the whole dimming the monitor thing should really only be done for print proofing and that they should be left to their best for regular usage and on screen viewing.
There is no reason to cripple the display ALL the time just because prints have a weak contrast range and sometimes poor blacks.
Personally I can't until one day we have 4-6k OLED displays.

And don't forget that people also used to project slides or view them on light boxes and they gave you some nice CR too.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: WombatHorror on July 11, 2010, 02:44:49 pm
Quote from: fike
Obviously the Dell marketing people got a little excitable on this one, but if you read further in the review you will see that they do debunk this absurd claim, albeit in a considerate and non-inflammatory way.

[blockquote]While the DCR obviously worked to some extent, I've no idea where Dell got the figure of 80,000:1 from! ... I don't know where Dell picked this spec from?![/blockquote]

in the conclusion:
[blockquote]The dynamic contrast ratio was nowhere near reaching its supposed specification...[/blockquote]

As the review points out, the LCD color accuracy is good with custom, at home, calibration, even if the Adobe RGB and sRGB presets are substandard.  

So after asking the question here about the necessity of LCD calibration, I have read what people have to say and some more reviews and the consensus is that, particularly with the more economically priced 24" displays, calibration does result in substantial improvements in color accuracy and consistency.  

It's too bad that they don't have better factory calibration.  If factory calibration were done well, I can see them obsoleting calibration equipment.  I wonder if the manufacturers are under any pressure to improve their calibration quality.  Sometimes early in product development and manufacturing cycle they are still making improvements to quality and yield.  I'm not going to hold out too much hope that this will be the case here.

always make sure to turn dynamic contrast off, for sure when doing calibration

the U2410 actually has somewhat low contrast and somewaht high black levels from what I read (in the realistic static mode)

don't pay any attention to TFTCentral findings on wide gamut monitors when it comes to gamut and white balance they use an i1D2 which does NOT at all properly measure wide gamut monitors unless used with custom software
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: WombatHorror on July 11, 2010, 02:47:34 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
For the same reason having a 12 stop scene range and a 6 stop capture device is problematic. Or a 10,000:1 display contrast ratio trying to soft proof a print that has a 250:1 ratio.

I think you will be sorely disappointed if everything eventually goes OLED then....

Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: WombatHorror on July 11, 2010, 02:52:42 pm
Quote from: Ethan_Hansen
-> (1) Is a 6 bit per channel monitor with a high contrast ratio better than a 6 bit monitor with a low CR?

Depends on your use. Most monitors achieve high contrast ratios by having the maximum luminance so high that you need wear sunglasses. LCD contrast ratio is governed by how little light leaks through when all the filters are active (black level) and how bright the backlight is when the filters are turned off (white level). Hitting 1000:1 or higher contrast ratios may well entail a white luminance of at least 200 cd/m2. That's bright.

A lot of LCD monitors can do 850:1 at only 110 cd/m^2. Some top recent regular old CCFL LCD HDTV can do a good 3500:1 at 100 cd/m^2.
Title: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: WombatHorror on July 11, 2010, 02:54:37 pm
Quote from: Ray
Hey! Mark,

We all know here that 6 bits per channel is not ideal for photography. The issue is 'contrast ratio' and any disadvantages a specific and particularly high contrast ratio may have for photography and calibration purposes.

6bits doesn't give you a whole lot of room to swithc between say tone response: gamma 2.2, gamma 2.3, sRGB, gamma 1.9, L*, etc.

6bit panels are also pretty much all TN which also tend to have other issues as well, including severe wash out vertically
Title: Re: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: TeeKay on March 28, 2015, 09:50:43 pm
FWIW, the DELL U2410 uses a native 8-bit panel plus (temporal) dithering to obtain 10-bit performance. All but the earliest firmware revisions make the dithering invisible to the eye unless you literally pixel-peep.
Title: Re: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: jferrari on March 31, 2015, 10:55:53 pm
FWIW, the DELL U2410 uses a native 8-bit panel plus (temporal) dithering to obtain 10-bit performance. All but the earliest firmware revisions make the dithering invisible to the eye unless you literally pixel-peep.

Yes, a lot has changed in the last five years.
Title: Re: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: D Fosse on April 01, 2015, 03:48:51 am
Actually all current 10-bit panels are in reality 8 bit + FRC - including NEC PA/Spectraview and Eizo ColorEdge.

The only true native 10 bit panel in recent use was the hp Dreamcolor LP2480ZX, for which the panel was custom manufactured by LG Display. (Apparently this unit didn't quite live up to expectations in other aspects, never used one).

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/monitor_panel_parts.htm (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/monitor_panel_parts.htm)
Title: Re: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: Czornyj on April 01, 2015, 11:41:35 am
Actually NEC PA302W and EA304WMi have "real" 10bit panels. Though theres no visual difference between real 10 bit and 8+2HiFRC.
Title: Re: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 11:53:29 am
(Apparently this unit didn't quite live up to expectations in other aspects, never used one).
It was a major disaster at least the first iteration. Many of us were allowed to purchase the new product at a discount to help HP spread the word about this awesome technology. I decided to pass after having a conversation with Karl Lang of PressView and Artisan fame about it before making up my mind. Glad I passed. Those on Mac OS were bitching and moaning on the ColorSync list for months.