Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: col on March 08, 2010, 03:22:31 am

Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 08, 2010, 03:22:31 am
I am in the process of upgrading my home PC, and choosing a new monitor.

A 24" monitor seems like a good size, and I don't mind spending a bit more for a better quality consumer-grade monitor.

I shoot in JPEG, so am neither a fanatic nor professional, but nonetheless appreciate good image quality, as viewed on my monitor.

I almost never print my images, preferring to view then on my monitor.

The very cheapest monitors don't appeal because of the poor viewing angle, so I am leaning towards one of the better consumer models such as the Dell 2408WFP or U2410, which are both quite affordable.

These are both "extended gamut" monitors, which at first seemed like an advantage, with the ability to display a wider gamut, or range of colours. Granted, the colour accuracy may be terrible (by professional standards) straight out of the box, but a low-cost colorimeter can fix that up, to a standard that is very good by consumer standards.

I would like some informed advice as to whether my conclusions below are correct.

On further reading, it appears that the extended gamut is a complete waste of time for me (and the majority of consumers), because my JPEGS are encoded in the standard sRGB colour space. The much wider range of colours which my camera (Canon G10) is capable of recording is irreversibly thrown away when the image is stored as a JPEG. If I set the monitor to display an extended gamut, the result will presumably be that the restricted sRGB gamut of my JPEGs is mapped to the extended gamut, producing a horribly unreal, though doubtless vivid, image. If I set the monitor to emulate the sRGB colour space, then there is no benefit in buying a monitor with extended gamut.

Did I get that right? If I got that right, then I'm extremely pissed off with Microsoft and HP for developing the short-sighted and low quality sRGB standard, which has the effect of preventing the average consumer from exploiting the low cost extended gamut monitors that are now becoming available.

Would I also be right in saying that consumer grade inkjet printers have now developed to the stage where their gamut also often exceeds the sRGB gamut? If this is true, then we have the same problem, where the average photographic consumer who prefers to work with JPEGs cannot exploit the full colour gamut of their printer.  

Would I also be right in saying that this mess has come about through industry (largely Microsoft) short-sightedness, and almost complete disregard for consumer image quality? Would not most of this mess be avoided if Microsoft and everyone else adopted a universal and significantly wider colour space,  encompassing extended gamut screens and printers? Sure, this may require another couple of data bits, and our JPEGs would be slightly bigger, but negligibly so I would suggest, considering advances in hardware. We have apparently accepted an order of magnitude increase in megapixels and image file sizes over the last few years, and RAW files are MUCH bigger, so I don't buy the argument that a universal, larger colour space is impractical or undesirable because a few more data bits would be necessary.        

OK people, please tear me apart and tell me I am completely wrong, because right now I'm feeling annoyed in my belief that average photographers such as myself, who prefer to work with JPEGs, cannot exploit the benefits of today's extended gamut monitors.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: walter.sk on March 08, 2010, 10:00:05 am
Quote from: col
I shoot in JPEG, so am neither a fanatic nor professional, but nonetheless appreciate good image quality, as viewed on my monitor.  

OK people, please tear me apart and tell me I am completely wrong, because right now I'm feeling annoyed in my belief that average photographers such as myself, who prefer to work with JPEGs, cannot exploit the benefits of today's extended gamut monitors.
You don't make clear what you do when you "work with jpegs."  Do you mean that you import them from your camera and then view them on your monitor?  Or do you mean that you optimize the color, tonality, contrast and other parameters of the images?

Relegating those who use RAW to "fanatics or professionals"  suggests either disdain for "average" photographers who shoot RAW, or a gross misunderstanding of what shooting RAW is or isn't.

I suspect that your work with jpegs includes adjusting exposure, lightening up shadows to bring out detail, bringing some more color to washed out skies, adjusting overall contrast, straightening tilted horizons, cropping images and possibly toning down noise and sharpening the images.

It also sounds as if you don't know that you can shoot RAW and do no more than the above adjustments in the RAW processor if you so choose.

When you can get a terabyte of storage for $100, the size of a Tiff file, especially when reduced in pixel dimensions, should not make a big difference in a decision to shoot RAW or Jpeg, but the ability to recover highlight detail and have a richer color and tone pallet should.

I think that having used a wide gamut monitor to work on my images I would not go back to an sRGB monitor.  I believe that if you only use your images to view on a monitor, you would still enjoy them more in a larger color space and on a monitor that could do them justice.

Many photographers who shoot jpeg and know that there is a difference, somehow have phobias about shooting RAW, or remember when RAW conversion included making choices about the curves and profiles involved in conversion.  Once seeing how the ease and amount of work in processing a RAW image can be the same as adjusting a jpeg yet give better results, many photographers become RAW enthusiasts.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: Paul Sumi on March 08, 2010, 10:38:28 am
I use a wide gamut monitor with my computer system.  I *do* shoot RAW and I do make prints at home.  I would never go back to a sRGB screen for my main display.

That said, one of the disadvantages of using a wide gamut monitor is that it renders colors properly only in color managed applications. This issue comes up the most often with web browsers since not all are color managed.

One other thing - are you calibrating your current monitor? You will get the most out of either sRGB or wide gamut monitors with hardware/software calibration.

Paul
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: LucDelorme on March 08, 2010, 11:06:36 am
Does your G10 have the option of saving JPEGs in AdobeRGB.  Some cameras have that option.  If so the extended gamut may be of value to you, and you will be able to view your pictures in a colour gamut that is closer to that which your camera can capture.  As mentioned previously, applications that are not colour-managed will not show colours accurately however.  This will be a problem mostly in Internet Exploere, office applications and games.  The colours aren't horribly off, but the difference is visible.  This is a bit less of a problm with a Mac, since Mac applications are typically more colour-aware.

On the standard gamut front, take a look at the NEC EA231WMi.  It's a nice, affordable IPS monitor. Colour accuracy is good once calibrated.  Some have reported issues with panel uniformity, but the Dell units also seems to have the problem, as most consumer-level IPS panels do.

Cheers,

Luc
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: Paul Sumi on March 08, 2010, 11:11:19 am
Quote from: LucDelorme
Does your G10 have the option of saving JPEGs in AdobeRGB.  Some cameras have that option.

I don't believe that the G10 has an Adobe RGB option for JPGs.  I'll have to check my G10 owner's manual to be sure.

Quote from: LucDelorme
The colours aren't horribly off, but the difference is visible.

True - this is seen most with flesh tones which are definitely more saturated.

Paul
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: digitaldog on March 08, 2010, 03:33:33 pm
Quote from: col
On further reading, it appears that the extended gamut is a complete waste of time for me (and the majority of consumers), because my JPEGS are encoded in the standard sRGB colour space. The much wider range of colours which my camera (Canon G10) is capable of recording is irreversibly thrown away when the image is stored as a JPEG. If I set the monitor to display an extended gamut, the result will presumably be that the restricted sRGB gamut of my JPEGs is mapped to the extended gamut, producing a horribly unreal, though doubtless vivid, image.


You are correct on all points expect that bit about the sRGB on a wide gamut display looking unreal. They will preview fine in an ICC aware application. Not so much outside them. If you are sure you’ll stick with sRGB JEPGs, there’s little reason to move to an extended gamut display.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 08, 2010, 08:44:23 pm
Quote from: walter.sk
You don't make clear what you do when you "work with jpegs."  Do you mean that you import them from your camera and then view them on your monitor?  Or do you mean that you optimize the color, tonality, contrast and other parameters of the images?

Relegating those who use RAW to "fanatics or professionals"  suggests either disdain for "average" photographers who shoot RAW, or a gross misunderstanding of what shooting RAW is or isn't.

I suspect that your work with jpegs includes adjusting exposure, lightening up shadows to bring out detail, bringing some more color to washed out skies, adjusting overall contrast, straightening tilted horizons, cropping images and possibly toning down noise and sharpening the images.

It also sounds as if you don't know that you can shoot RAW and do no more than the above adjustments in the RAW processor if you so choose.

When you can get a terabyte of storage for $100, the size of a Tiff file, especially when reduced in pixel dimensions, should not make a big difference in a decision to shoot RAW or Jpeg, but the ability to recover highlight detail and have a richer color and tone pallet should.

I think that having used a wide gamut monitor to work on my images I would not go back to an sRGB monitor.  I believe that if you only use your images to view on a monitor, you would still enjoy them more in a larger color space and on a monitor that could do them justice.

Many photographers who shoot jpeg and know that there is a difference, somehow have phobias about shooting RAW, or remember when RAW conversion included making choices about the curves and profiles involved in conversion.  Once seeing how the ease and amount of work in processing a RAW image can be the same as adjusting a jpeg yet give better results, many photographers become RAW enthusiasts.

Firstly thanks to everyone for your information and advice.

I'll answer the questions above, because I probably did not make my needs myself clear, and I also think it important to realize that the majority of consumers who own and use digital camera have no interest in generating or working with RAW files. I realize that people on this site are enthusiasts or professionals, but I am deliberately looking at the bigger picture, where the majority of the general public do not and never will want to shag around with RAW.

Quote
You don't make clear what you do when you "work with jpegs."  Do you mean that you import them from your camera and then view them on your monitor?  Or do you mean that you optimize the color, tonality, contrast and other parameters of the images?

I always shoot in JPEG, and archive my pictures in JPEG. In 95% of cases I don't alter the out-of-camera picture in any way. In the 5% of cases that I do, the change will be minor such as rotation, cropping or resizing to send on the net. It is very rare indeed that I either feel the need, or could be bothered, with changing colour, contrast etc., and the limited and technically inferior methods for making such changes with a JPEG are just fine for me, given how infrequently I do it. Of course, I always keep the original JPEG because any changes made irreversibly degrade the quality. Arguably I am barely an enthusiast, but being a scientist/engineer type, I do care about the image quality more than your average happy-family-snaps photographer.

Sure, I know about RAW and the advantages it offers the enthusiast but, as explained, I would prefer not to be shagged with it. What I was NOT aware of until a few days ago was that standard JPEGs throw away the wide colur gamut captured by the camera, which arguably mattered little in the past, because in the past no one except an enthusiast or professional would own (or could afford) an extended gamut monitor. I was also not aware until recently that at least some of the gamut potentially available in the better consumer inkjet printers is not usable when printing sRGB JPEGs with their restricted gamut.  


Quote
I think that having used a wide gamut monitor to work on my images I would not go back to an sRGB monitor.  I believe that if you only use your images to view on a monitor, you would still enjoy them more in a larger color space and on a monitor that could do them justice.
Unfortunately, now that such monitors are cheaply available, I'm fairly sure that I also would prefer to view my images in a larger colour space that could do them justice. Even more unfortunately, it is impossible for me to do so for the thousands of JPEG images that I have taken over the last 10 years since digital cameras have been available - thank you to Microsoft and HP for your crap sRGB standard.    

My harsh criticisms are not directed at JPEGs as such. I think most people know that JPEG compression produces some artifacts and loss of detail, but it's actually pretty darned good, and in any event you have the camera option of selecting the JPEG quality (compression factor), and thus choosing your own compromise between file size and image quality.

I realize that enthusiasts and professionals can get the results they require by shooting RAW, using colour profiles and ICC aware applications. However, what the general public (and me) surely would want is to be able to happily take JPEG photos just as they do now, and then be able to display them optimally (means with the full gamut that the display is capable of) on any monitor, with any software, or print them optimally (means with the full gamut that the printer is capable of) on any printer. Is that asking too much? You bet it is!!! The industry is (IMHO) in a complete mess in this matter, and perhaps some debate about how things could be improved might be useful. I suspect that in practice Microsoft holds most of the cards here, dominating operating systems, browsers, image viewers and so on, and little is likely to happen without will and cooperation from them. Nonetheless, it might be interesting to discuss how, at least in principle, things could be done better than they are now.

 


Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 08, 2010, 10:58:05 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
You are correct on all points expect that bit about the sRGB on a wide gamut display looking unreal. They will preview fine in an ICC aware application. Not so much outside them. If you are sure you’ll stick with sRGB JEPGs, there’s little reason to move to an extended gamut display.


Sadly you confirm my suspicion that a wide gamut monitor is a complete waste of time for me, and the majority of the general public, if I only shoot sRGB JPEGs.

Agreed that sRGB JPEGs will preview without looking "unreal" in an ICC aware application. At best, this means is that they will preview no better than with a standard monitor - you can't get back gamut that was never stored in the JPEG in the first place. At worst, as most "consumer" image viewers (including any part of Windows) are not ICC aware, then the sRGB JPEG will be displayed incorrectly with gross colour distortion.

I'm really pissed off that the industry is in such a mess. I believe that Firefox are doing their best to improve matters by being aware of and correctly displaying Adobe RGB files. That is a good start, and hopefully might convince Microsoft and others that the present unsatisfactory situation needs to be addressed.

The irony is, that I believe the issue of "full gamut colour" is a marketing dream, if the industry could all pull in the same direction. Of course Joe Public would want, no need, "Full Gamut Colour", if they knew they were presently missing out on it, just as eveyone wants and needs "Full HD". Sooner or later the market will wake up to this, but the practical problem is that a universal extended gamut standard needs to be defined, needs to be backward compatible, and needs to be universally adopted by the industry in the way that sRGB JPEGS are at present. It's a beautiful dream, but I know of no theoretical reason why it can't happen.  

I have little idea what I am talking about, so regard my suggestions as a stimulus for discussion. One key question is how much bigger would JPEG files need to be be to store existing wider colour space standards such as Adobe, Adobe Wide Gamut, or PhotoPro, compared to sRGB, for the same spacing between adjacent colours.? I'm sure there are experts here that could answer that question, but given that each extra bit doubles the number of colour values that can be stored, I would have thought that the files would not be much bigger at all. In any event, storage is so cheap these days that a modest increase in file sizes would not be an issue anyway.

Why was the sRGB space defined so damned tightly in the first place anyway, without any "extra space" whatsoever to accomodate likely gamut expansion of monitors and printers. Was it just because the standard was conceived in days long passed, when every wasted byte mattered, and everything possible was done to reduce file size? Again, there must be experts that can answer that question.

   


Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: digitaldog on March 09, 2010, 08:59:32 am
Quote from: col
I'm really pissed off that the industry is in such a mess. I believe that Firefox are doing their best to improve matters by being aware of and correctly displaying Adobe RGB files. That is a good start, and hopefully might convince Microsoft and others that the present unsatisfactory situation needs to be addressed.
sRGB needs to go the way of the dodo bird. It was based on display behaviors of the early 1990’s and on CRT displays that have gone as well. The issue isn’t the displays, its the brain dead app’s that don’t treat the data correctly.
Quote
The irony is, that I believe the issue of "full gamut colour" is a marketing dream, if the industry could all pull in the same direction. Of course Joe Public would want, no need, "Full Gamut Colour", if they knew they were presently missing out on it, just as eveyone wants and needs ...
Quote
I have little idea what I am talking about, so regard my suggestions as a stimulus for discussion.
They can certainly use and would prefer wider gamut technology if the browsers and OS (Windows) had some intelligence and didn’t think everything were sRGB. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water with these kinds of beliefs about wide gamut displays.
Quote
One key question is how much bigger would JPEG files need to be be to store existing wider colour space standards such as Adobe, Adobe Wide Gamut, or PhotoPro, compared to sRGB
No bigger. An 8-bit per color document is the same size, the encoding color space doesn’t change that.
Quote
Why was the sRGB space defined so damned tightly in the first place anyway, without any "extra space" whatsoever to accomodate likely gamut expansion of monitors and printers. Was it just because the standard was conceived in days long passed, when every wasted byte mattered, and everything possible was done to reduce file size? Again, there must be experts that can answer that question.
Because it was designed nearly 20 years ago.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 10, 2010, 01:13:44 am
Hi all,

I don't understand some of Andrew's anwers so, as I am here to learn, will challenge his answers in the hope that he (or anyone else) can explain where I am wrong.

Quote
sRGB needs to go the way of the dodo bird.
On that we both totally agree.


Quote
The issue isn’t the displays ....
From my reading, sRGB was usually just fine for CRT and "standard" LCD displays. However, as I see it, there is a very real issue indeed with the newer "extended gamut" displays, in that sRGB image files simply can't properly exploit the extended gamut of these displays. As the majority of the public shoot in sRGB JPEG, this means that the majority of people who own cameras can't exploit the benefits of these improved displays. That sounds like a very significant issue to me.  


Quote
... its the brain dead app’s that don’t treat the data correctly.
Most applications are "brain dead", yes, and that is another problem. However, it doesn't matter how aware or smart the application is, it still can't properly display an sRGB file on an extended gamut monitor, can it?


Quote
They can certainly use and would prefer wider gamut technology if the browsers and OS (Windows) had some intelligence and didn’t think everything were sRGB. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water with these kinds of beliefs about wide gamut displays.
As far as I can see, it doesn't matter how aware or smart the application is, it still can't properly display an sRGB file on an extended gamut monitor. If I am wrong on this point then I'll be extremely happy, and go out and buy an extended gamut monitor tomorrow, so I can view my existing 10 years worth of sRGB JPEGS in glorious extended gamut. We need to resolve this point.


Quote
I wrote:
One key question is how much bigger would JPEG files need to be be to store existing wider colour space standards such as Adobe, Adobe Wide Gamut, or PhotoPro, compared to sRGB, for the same spacing between adjacent colours.?
Quote
No bigger. An 8-bit per color document is the same size, the encoding color space doesn’t change that.
I think you did not read my question properly. One of the results of using a wider colour space with the same bit depth is that the spacing between colours is increased, leading to a risk of posterization. Reading the original question again carefully, can anyone answer?


Quote
I wrote:
Why was the sRGB space defined so damned tightly in the first place anyway, without any "extra space" whatsoever to accomodate likely gamut expansion of monitors and printers. Was it just because the standard was conceived in days long passed, when every wasted byte mattered, and everything possible was done to reduce file size?
Quote
Because it was designed nearly 20 years ago.
I realize that, but it in no way answers my question. Maybe my suggested answer is partly correct, though I suspect there is more to it.

Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: digitaldog on March 10, 2010, 09:01:18 am
Quote
Most applications are "brain dead", yes, and that is another problem. However, it doesn't matter how aware or smart the application is, it still can't properly display an sRGB file on an extended gamut monitor, can it?
Which is why nearly all such wide gamut displays provide an sRGB emulation for all those stupid applications.
Quote
As far as I can see, it doesn't matter how aware or smart the application is, it still can't properly display an sRGB file on an extended gamut monitor.
Actually that is possible.
Quote
I think you did not read my question properly. One of the results of using a wider colour space with the same bit depth is that the spacing between colours is increased, leading to a risk of posterization. Reading the original question again carefully, can anyone answer?
You should always be working in high bit. Lots of users don’t, even in ProPhoto (which according to Kodak who developed it and Bruce Fraser who did early testing, worked fine with 8-bit data). But you should be working in high bit no matter the working space. And the working space has nothing to do with the display color space or gamut.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: martinreed22 on March 10, 2010, 09:48:27 am
Quote from: col
As far as I can see, it doesn't matter how aware or smart the application is, it still can't properly display an sRGB file on an extended gamut monitor. If I am wrong on this point then I'll be extremely happy, and go out and buy an extended gamut monitor tomorrow, so I can view my existing 10 years worth of sRGB JPEGS in glorious extended gamut. We need to resolve this point.
I'd like to focus on just this point, for the sake of clarity. Specifically, what might be meant by "properly".

A colour profile/ICC aware application on a wide gamut profiled display will indeed display your image properly. By which I mean the greens, reds etc will display as accurately as the camera that captured them ie close to real life.

What it can't do is display colours that were never captured in the first place. Such as a shade of green or purple that sRGB cannot represent, because it is outside of sRGB gamut.

If that last sentence seems mysterious, please google "color gamut".

Note that Windows itself is not colour aware, only individual applications such as Photoshop, Lightroom etc.

cheers, martin
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: digitaldog on March 10, 2010, 09:50:19 am
Quote from: martinreed22
I'd like to focus on just this point, for the sake of clarity. Specifically, what might be meant by "properly".
A colour profile/ICC aware application on a wide gamut profiled display will indeed display your image properly. By which I mean the greens, reds etc will display as accurately as the camera that captured them ie close to real life.
What it can't do is display colours that were never captured in the first place. Such as a shade of green or purple that sRGB cannot represent, because it is outside of sRGB gamut.
If that last sentence seems mysterious, please google "color gamut".
Note that Windows itself is not colour aware, only individual applications such as Photoshop, Lightroom etc.

Well said!
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: Mike Bailey on March 10, 2010, 10:24:36 am
Beware of the Dell 2408WFP.  I have one I bought last August and debated returning it, but ended up living with the shortcomings it has.  The worst is that it has very uneven brightness across the screen.  The left side for 2 or 3 inches in much brighter than the center.  The right side shows similar problems, but not quite as badly.  This is a very frequent problem among many people who have bought that monitor.  Some think it is resolved by different firmware fixes.  Some know better than that.  If you go to the forums on Dell's web site and search on this, you'll find enough to probably convince you.

http://en.community.dell.com/forums/p/1916...1.aspx#19400841 (http://en.community.dell.com/forums/p/19166732/19400841.aspx#19400841)

Just a fair warning.  Best to take that one off your list.  I use it now as a backup monitor and not on my main work machine.  There are other problems, perhaps related to operating system and graphics cards, but it often will go into standby (black screen) mode soon after booting up and/or randomly after being on some time.

Mike

______________
http://BlueRockPhotography.com (http://BlueRockPhotography.com)
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 10, 2010, 05:18:12 pm
Quote from: Mike Bailey
Beware of the Dell 2408WFP.  I have one I bought last August and debated returning it, but ended up living with the shortcomings it has.  The worst is that it has very uneven brightness across the screen.  The left side for 2 or 3 inches in much brighter than the center.  The right side shows similar problems, but not quite as badly.  This is a very frequent problem among many people who have bought that monitor.  Some think it is resolved by different firmware fixes.  Some know better than that.  If you go to the forums on Dell's web site and search on this, you'll find enough to probably convince you.

http://en.community.dell.com/forums/p/1916...1.aspx#19400841 (http://en.community.dell.com/forums/p/19166732/19400841.aspx#19400841)

Just a fair warning.  Best to take that one off your list.  I use it now as a backup monitor and not on my main work machine.  There are other problems, perhaps related to operating system and graphics cards, but it often will go into standby (black screen) mode soon after booting up and/or randomly after being on some time.

Mike_____________
http://BlueRockPhotography.com (http://BlueRockPhotography.com)



Thanks for the heads up on that, because that montor was top of my list, influenced by a recent massive price drop from AUD$800 to $550. I believe the price drop is not because the model is no good as such, but to make way for the newer model U2410, priced at AUD$800.

This monitor was reviewed and accurately measured here http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_2408wfp.htm (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_2408wfp.htm) and panel uniformity was found to be good, even better than average.

The problem with reviews such as this, and with the experience of any individual, is that the product quality varies considerably from unit to unit, to the point that I sometimes wonder whether such reviews based on a single sample really tell us anything useful at all. You really need to measure maybe four samples, taken evenly throughout the most recent 6 months of production, but I have drifted onto another topic ....

You are clearly aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from a single sample, but as quite a number of users have experienced similar problems, I concur that this monitor is best avoided.

I now lean towards current model Dell U2410 - comments anyone? The tftcentral review found that their particular sample was poorly calibrated out-of-the-box, but an excellent performer once calibrated.

Again, thanks.

Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 10, 2010, 07:10:07 pm
Quote from: martinreed22
I'd like to focus on just this point, for the sake of clarity. Specifically, what might be meant by "properly".

A colour profile/ICC aware application on a wide gamut profiled display will indeed display your image properly. By which I mean the greens, reds etc will display as accurately as the camera that captured them ie close to real life.

What it can't do is display colours that were never captured in the first place. Such as a shade of green or purple that sRGB cannot represent, because it is outside of sRGB gamut.

If that last sentence seems mysterious, please google "color gamut".

Note that Windows itself is not colour aware, only individual applications such as Photoshop, Lightroom etc.

cheers, martin

I perfectly understand everything you say, Martin. I have read dozens of articles totalling several hundred pages, and have a solid scientific/engineering background as well, so by now would claim to at least know what a colour space and gamut is. However, let's just say I know enough to know that this is a highly complex subject, so I am treading carefully. I also never ask a question unless I have done at least some basic research, and have a fair idea of the answer in advance.

Now let's go back to my original question, and my particular situation and needs.

The majority of the general public shoot in sRGB JPEG. For the last 10 years I have also shot in sRGB JPEG, though I do care about image quality, and take the trouble to own a reasonable quality camera, and use it properly. For the purpose of this thread, I am deliberately wearing the hat of all who shoot in sRGB JPEG, which is in fact the overall majority.

My old screen has died, so I need to buy a new one, and on the face of it, it would be nice to buy one of the new extended gamut monitors, such as the Dell U2410.

You are exactly right to question what I mean by displaying my sRGB JPEGs "properly", and in retrospect I can see how my use of the term was confusing.

The key issue here for me, is whether I will be able to exploit the benefit of an extended gamut monitor when viewing sRGB JPEGs, either those that I have taken in the past, or in the future.

Of course, if I set the monitor to emulate sRGB color space, then everything will be "OK" in the sense that the restricted gamut of colours in my files will be displayed correctly, exactly as they were on my old monitor, but in that case I am completely wasting my time and money buying the extended gamut monitor.

If the extended gamut monitor is not set to sRGB, and the software is totally dumb (like any part of Windows) then the software assumes (correctly) that my image file is sRGB, but does not know that it will be sending that image data to an extended gamut monitor. Presumably then, the dumb software happily sends the image data to the monitor, identically to how it would for any other monitor. The result will be that my restricted gamut image data is mapped to the full gamut of the monitor. To Joe public the result may even look impressive, but the vivid and saturated colours being displayed will bear little resemblance to the colours in the original scene that was photographed. For anyone that cares a fig about colour fidelity, using the extended gamut of the display in this way would be a truly awful thing to do, almost a crime ....

If the software is smart, and knows that the image file is sRGB, and also knows that the monitor has an extended gamut (and knows it is not set to emulate sRGB), then the situation is more interesting. However you look at it though, colours in the original scene that were out of the sRGB gamut, cannot be displayed correctly on the monitor, because the sRGB file simply does not contain the information about these out-of-gamut colours in the first place.

Quote
A colour profile/ICC aware application on a wide gamut profiled display will indeed display your image properly. By which I mean the greens, reds etc will display as accurately as the camera that captured them ie close to real life.
Therefore this statement is not, strictly speaking, true. The camera can and does capture a gamut exceeding even the best display, but the captured gamut is then compressed or clipped into the sRGB colour space when producing the sRGB JPEG with the result that the wide gamut of the display is wasted. The fault here is not with the camera, the JPEG compression, the display or the editing/viewing software. As far as I can see, the fault lies in the absurdly restrictive sRGB colour space. In a previous post I asked why Microsoft/HP elected to standardize on such an obviously restrictive colour space in the first place, and apparently no one knows. I don't know either, but I curse that they did.    

Every way you look at it then, the extended gamut of the monitor cannot be usefully exploited when  displaying an sRGB JPEG, and the problem has nothing to do with how smart or colour aware the software/viewer is. I would like to be wrong on this point, but unfortunately everything I have said appears to be correct.

Given that the overall majority of people shoot in sRGB JPEG, and will never be interested in going RAW, this is surely a very significant problem. As things stand, the overall majority of people have no incentive to buy an extended gamut monitor, because they will not be able to exploit the extended gamut. FWIW, the majority who shoot sRGB JPEG won't be able to use the full gamut of the better inkjet printers either, for the same reasons. What a pathetic situation. I reiterate my previous conviction that the industry is in a total mess, which is hardly anything new if you look back through the evolution of Microsoft windows, for example.

If anything I have said here is factually wrong, then please, please, tell me.

Colin
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 11, 2010, 01:05:59 am
I wrote:
Quote
One key question is how much bigger would JPEG files need to be be to store existing wider colour space standards such as AdobeRGB, AdobeWideRGB, or PhotoProRGB, compared to sRGB, for the same spacing between adjacent colours?  ...  given that each extra bit doubles the number of colour values that can be stored, I would have thought that the files would not be much bigger at all.
Quote from: digitaldog
You should always be working in high bit. Lots of users don’t, even in ProPhoto (which according to Kodak who developed it and Bruce Fraser who did early testing, worked fine with 8-bit data). But you should be working in high bit no matter the working space. And the working space has nothing to do with the display color space or gamut.

Agreed that all your "working" , editing and generally manipulating the image, using your favourite sftware such as Photoshop, Lightroom etc,  should be done in 16 bits, crazy not to.

But still the original question has not been answered. The reason I asked the question is because there seems to be good agreement that sRGB is crap and "should go the way of the dodo". OK, so in an ideal world we would presumably prefer that EVERYONE standardized on a wider colour space, such as AdobeRGB, or maybe even PhotoPro, but this has possible implications for the size of our image files, because a greater bit depth may be required to avoid posterization issues due to the gradations between colours becoming too coarse. Keep in mind that this is an exercise of the mind, concerned with what we might ideally and theoretically LIKE to have, rather than what we actually have. I'm a purist who enjoys discussing how things should be done, while most sensible people concentrate more on what is actually available to them, even though it may be crap.  

To answer the question requires looking at the relative sizes of the commonly available colour spaces, which Wikipedia gives as below :-

sRGB covers 35% of the visible colours specidied by CIE
AdobeRGB covers 50%
WideAdobeRGB covers 76%
PhotoPro covers 90%

The numbers are interesting in their own right, with even the well regarded AdobeRGB colour space capable of representing only 50% of the colours that humans are capable of seeing, and the ubiquitous sRGB representing a mere 35%. Fortunately, human vision is very forgiving.

Getting back to the original question, if the presently adopted 8-bits per channel (for the image file) is regarded as satisfactory for sRGB, then we see that AdobeRGB colour space is only 40% bigger (50/35), so 8 bits is probably just fine for AdobeRGB as well, and conceivably could be used for WideAdobe and Photpro as well, though I personally reckon that would be pushing things a bit. One extra bit (9-bits) would easily handle WideAdobeRGB, and 2 extra bits (10-bit, a minor increase of 25%) would be the most ever required, giving finer colour gradations in PhotoPro than we presently have with 8-bit sRGB.

My original suspicion appears to be confirmed. Required image file size is essentially a non-issue concerning the choice of a wider colour space. Which asks two obvious questions, in my mind.
 
(1) Why did Microsoft/HP decide to make the sRGB colour space so damn narrow and restrictive? (There must be an answer, to be sure ...)  

(2) In principle, would we all (meaning the entire industry) be much better off to universally adopt a wider colour space to replace sRGB?
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: digitaldog on March 11, 2010, 08:59:20 am
Quote from: col
(1) Why did Microsoft/HP decide to make the sRGB colour space so damn narrow and restrictive? (There must be an answer, to be sure ...)  

(2) In principle, would we all (meaning the entire industry) be much better off to universally adopt a wider colour space to replace sRGB?

1. Because its based on a theoretical emissive display and at the time, the majority of such devices where CRT displays with a certain phosphor set etc. That’s why I said, 20 years ago, it made sense.
2. I don’t know how anyone defines “the industry” or how any group can define a universally accepted color space (we can’t even agree on a universal raw file format which is far more important IMHO).

What will likely happen is more and more displays will have a extended gamut, the price will come down and sRGB will as I hope, become extinct. That’s exactly what we see happening with CRT displays, many of which had the potential to produce sRGB.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: Rocco Penny on March 11, 2010, 09:51:57 am
Ultimately for me,
a beginner and uneducated,

I want to enjoy looking at images and art.
There is a huge difference between my old laptop screen @ 17" and 1 million colors
and my entry level IPS @ 24" to make the change more than worth it.
I wish I could've skipped the 8 bit screen, but $
So yeah it's pretty darn neat to see a jpeg as good as it gets.
You'll probably get other stuff later
500 isn't too much for me but 2000 is
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: joofa on March 11, 2010, 03:00:36 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
I don’t know how anyone defines “the industry” or how any group can define a universally accepted color space (we can’t even agree on a universal raw file format which is far more important IMHO).

Progress is happening in related industries such as Digital Cinema, where efforts are underway to standardize a color space, and DCI initiatives recommends the XYZ space. Parameteric RGB was considered but the idea dropped considering what will happen if the metadata regarding primaries specifications was lost.

Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 11, 2010, 05:58:09 pm
Quote from: Rocco Penny
Ultimately for me,
a beginner and uneducated,

I want to enjoy looking at images and art.
There is a huge difference between my old laptop screen @ 17" and 1 million colors
and my entry level IPS @ 24" to make the change more than worth it.
I wish I could've skipped the 8 bit screen, but $
So yeah it's pretty darn neat to see a jpeg as good as it gets.
You'll probably get other stuff later
500 isn't too much for me but 2000 is

From what you say, it appears that you shoot in sRGB JPEG, which is what almost everyone uses, except for a minority (in overall terms) of enthusiasts and professionals that shoot raw or AdobeRGB.

At the moment I gather you are quite happy with the results and, as you say, the images will look vastly better on a 24" IPS screen than on almost any laptop screen.

Just be aware that as extended gamut screens become more widely available (your IPS 24" may even be extended gamut), you will not be able to see the full range of colurs that an extended gamut monitor is capable of displaying, because the standard JPEG files are incapable of storing information about those extended colours.

If the truth be known, the difference won't be all that dramatic, certainly not as dramatic as the difference between a laptop screen and any decent desktop screen. Nonetheless, as you learn more and become more discerning, you may later regret having shot your pictures in JPEG.

The alternative is to shoot in RAW or, if your camera has the option, shoot in AdobeRGB. Unfortunately both alternatives require that you know what you are doing, and will require more messing around. To derive any benefit from an extended gamut monitor you will need to view these images (derived from RAW or shot as AdobeRGB) using colour-managed applications (which excludes anything you do now with Windows), and you will need to produce a separate sRGB image for sending to friends or over the internet. Such is the currrent messy state of hardware and software imaging technology.

Quote
So yeah it's pretty darn neat to see a jpeg as good as it gets.
Not sure what you mean by this, but hopefully it is clear from the above that the standard JPEGS that you probably use now do NOT let you see the image as good as it gets on an extended gamut monitor. Improved future technology, either in hardware of software, or "getting other stuff later" won't help as regards the standard JPEGs you are shooting now, or have shot in the past. These images are condemned forever to be limited to viewing in a restricted gamut of colours.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: Paul Sumi on March 11, 2010, 06:35:20 pm
Quote from: col
Nonetheless, as you learn more and become more discerning, you may later regret having shot your pictures in JPEG.

The alternative is to shoot in RAW or, if your camera has the option, shoot in AdobeRGB. Unfortunately both alternatives require that you know what you are doing, and will require more messing around.

This is OT but these days, storage (memory cards and hard drive) is cheap.  Just do what I do with my G10 and shoot RAW plus JPG. The best of both worlds.

Paul
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: Rocco Penny on March 11, 2010, 07:40:59 pm
Ummm,
I do both now quite adeptly.
Not to say I dont' have serious and compelling gaps in knowledge and execution that by definition puts me in the company of novices, and with any equipment or software or hardware,
that will be a point to remember
I by no means have enough experience or theory to know,
but
I have been printing and viewing my images,
both in the softproof state on my IPS panel profiled with an eye1display2
and by viewing prints I make too numerous to say I'm good at it just yet,(1 good 1 is worth any # of bad 1s)
1 a day for a while, now flurries of a whole roll's worth
Planning is everything,
well,
IDK for sure how to explain it,
but the jpegs I have shot in the past,(no longer doing that unless I'm tossing shots on the internet)
look better on my 24" screen than my 17" screen.
In fact, as I look on my 24" more and more,
I can't see going back to a reduced gamut
I'm telling you I can see a terrific difference between my 17 inch lcd and my 24" lcd in the native state, much more when color managed...
So yeah that's what I'm saying,
I can absolutely vouch that at least in my case, jpegs viewed on
an 8 bit IPS monitor in win 32  using color managed apps in srgb and native everything except as directed by my colorimeter in the profiling step,
looks far better to me than my old top of the line in 2004 lcd screen on my laptop.
It just does.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 11, 2010, 08:29:10 pm
Quote from: Rocco Penny
Ummm,
I do both now quite adeptly.

but the jpegs I have shot in the past,(no longer doing that unless I'm tossing shots on the internet)
look better on my 24" screen than my 17" screen.
In fact, as I look on my 24" more and more,
I can't see going back to a reduced gamut
I'm telling you I can see a terrific difference between my 17 inch lcd and my 24" lcd in the native state, much more when color managed...
So yeah that's what I'm saying,
I can absolutely vouch that at least in my case, jpegs viewed on
an 8 bit IPS monitor in win 32  using color managed apps in srgb and native everything except as directed by my colorimeter in the profiling step,
looks far better to me than my old top of the line in 2004 lcd screen on my laptop.
It just does.

I aplogize for assuming you were a beginner as you modestly claimed to be - you are clearly quite experienced and adept.

Laptop screens (your 17") have a much smaller gamut than desktop screens, typically around half (!) so I'm certainly not surpised that your 24" desktop looks far better than your 17" laptop.



Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 12, 2010, 05:59:42 am
Quote from: digitaldog
2. I don’t know how anyone defines “the industry” or how any group can define a universally accepted color space (we can’t even agree on a universal raw file format which is far more important IMHO).
What I mean, is for a wider color space (eg Adobe Wide RGB) to become universal in use, just as sRGB is currently the defacto standard for the internet, for Windows, and for virtually every camera manufacturer.
The "industry" is every hardware product, software product or user, that creates or uses image files.
Of course, the gamut of output devices such as monitors or printers is a function of the device itself, and gamut mapping must always take place when the image data is finally sent to the output device.
However, as I see it, and as I have read, unecessary moving between different color spaces is a very bad thing, and every time you do it, some guesses have to be made, and the fidelity of the image is reduced. The step in the chain that really irks me, is moving from the wide color space of the camera, to the very narrow, almost universally used sRGB color space of the JPEG image files created by almost every camera. That seems stupid, and I believe the only reason that camera manufacturers do it, is because Microsoft set the sRGB standard, and if you want your camera to sell, then you follow Microsoft or your'e out of business. The fact is that almost everyone uses Windows, and expects the default image files from their camera to be compatible with Windows and the internet.  
 

Quote
What will likely happen is more and more displays will have a extended gamut, the price will come down and sRGB will as I hope, become extinct.
Agreed. All I'm saying, is what color space do you hope will replace the present de-facto sRGB standard if it becomes extinct as we both hope? The sad reality is that Microsoft sets this standard, and it is most unlikely IMHO that Microsoft will adopt any competing standard such as Adobe, or PhotoPro from Kodak. Nonetheless, that does not stop us from discussing what we would ideally like to see happen ....

I again repeat my disclaimer that I know little about this complex subject, and encourage the experts to expose any naive statements or factual errors.

Colin
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 15, 2010, 08:04:37 pm
I wrote:
Quote
Why was the sRGB space defined so damned tightly in the first place anyway, without any "extra space" whatsoever to accomodate likely gamut expansion of monitors and printers?
This question has still not been answered to my satisfaction. The standard was introduced 14 years ago (not that long ago) by Microsoft/HP in 1996, and described in a document entitled "A Standard Default Color Space for the Internet - sRGB", which can be found here:

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB.html (http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB.html)

So, why was a wider color space not chosen for sRGB? Why didn't they choose something more like AdobeRGB, which would have been wide enough to encompass not only the gamut of monitors in use at the time, but also wider gamut monitors that would be likely appear in the future? The point I have been trying to make for some time, is that there must have been a specific reason why they deliberately made the sRGB colour space as narrow as they did, with no "extra space" whatsoever.

On further reading, including the above document, it becomes clear to me. sRGB was deliberately designed to match the color space of monitors of the day - not a scrap wider or narrower. The advantage of doing this, is that it avoids the need for colour management processing within Windows altogether, which was more than a little bit useful for Microsoft given that even to this day, most of Windows is not colour managed!! Sure, the colour gamut of everything in the chain is reduced to the lowest common denominator of sRGB, but was considered "good enough", and the simplicity of the scheme was irresistible. It avoids the use of ICC profiles, and is certainly better than having no standard at all in a non-colour-managed environment. Thus, the very reason for introducing sRGB in the first place would have been lost if the sRGB colour space had been defined wider than the "average" monitor of the day.  

To be fair to Microsoft, the sRGB approach has been more-or-less successful, but it's usefulness has disappeared with the advent of wide gamut monitors. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the legacy of the sRGB approach, with the existence of countless billions of sRGB JPEG image files that now cannot be viewed using the full gamut of colours available on todays monitors. Worse still, sRGB persists even today as the default colour space for the out-of-camera JPEGs taken by the vast majority of consumer cameras. However, we can't have it both ways. Hopefully cameras will slowly move to encoding out-of-camera JPEGs in a wider color space, but when this happens, we will necessarily need to frig with ICC profiles and use color managed applications, which for most of us includes Windows, which as yet is not up to the task. We live and hope.

Colin  

 

From the article reference above:

HP and Microsoft propose an additional means of managing color that is optimized to meet the needs of most users without the overhead of carrying an ICC profile with the image: the addition to the OS and the Internet of support for a Standard Color Space. Since the image is in a known color space and the profile for that color space would ship with the OS and browser, this enables the end users to enjoy the benefits of color management without the overhead of larger files. While it may be argued that profiles could buy slightly higher color accuracy, we believe that the benefits of using a standard color space far out-weigh the drawbacks for a wide range of users.

... we propose a colorimetric RGB specification that is based on the average performance of personal computer displays.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: digitaldog on March 15, 2010, 08:13:09 pm
Quote from: col
Why was the sRGB space defined so damned tightly in the first place anyway, without any "extra space" whatsoever to accomodate likely gamut expansion of monitors and printers?
This question has still not been answered to my satisfaction. The standard was introduced 14 years ago...
So, why was a wider color space not chosen for sRGB?

sRGB is a theoretical color space. It was designed to mimic the behavior of a well supported type of emissive display using specific phosphors, in a specific ambient condition (reference media). Since there were no such wider gamut display technology available to the masses, there was little reason to build a spec based on something that wasn’t widely available. As the document from MS states, the idea was to be able to deal with images in a common output (an old CRT display) without needing to use an actual ICC profile of the display itself or a profile in a document. Those displays are all but gone from the planet making the assumption about their color space (in the broadest strokes) a big assumption even before we consider more modern, wider gamut technology.

Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: Rory on March 15, 2010, 09:11:30 pm
Quote from: col
If the extended gamut monitor is not set to sRGB, and the software is totally dumb (like any part of Windows) then the software assumes (correctly) that my image file is sRGB, but does not know that it will be sending that image data to an extended gamut monitor. Presumably then, the dumb software happily sends the image data to the monitor, identically to how it would for any other monitor. The result will be that my restricted gamut image data is mapped to the full gamut of the monitor. To Joe public the result may even look impressive, but the vivid and saturated colours being displayed will bear little resemblance to the colours in the original scene that was photographed. For anyone that cares a fig about colour fidelity, using the extended gamut of the display in this way would be a truly awful thing to do, almost a crime ....

Actually, you can start by blaming your camera, or your decision on what camera to buy.  If you truly care about colour fidelity, then shooting in-camera jpg is a bad place to start.  ALL digitals cameras shoot RAW.  However, not all digital cameras allow you to save the RAW file.  They do the conversion to JPG in-camera, and they make a number of assumptions about colour profiling, tone curves, noise reduction sharpening.  The general public does not want realistic colours, or as you put it "To Joe public the result may even look impressive, but the vivid and saturated colours being displayed will bear little resemblance to the colours in the original scene that was photographed".  I can assure you that the Canon in-camera processing is not realistic, but embellished.

Regarding wide gamut monitors, why don't you try one out.  For the type of shooting you do, I doubt you will notice much difference.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 16, 2010, 12:46:49 am
I wrote:
Quote
On further reading, it appears that the extended gamut is a complete waste of time for me (and the majority of consumers), because my JPEGS are encoded in the standard sRGB colour space. The much wider range of colours which my camera (Canon G10) is capable of recording is irreversibly thrown away when the image is stored as a JPEG.
However you look at it, colours in the original scene that were out of the sRGB gamut, cannot be displayed correctly on a wide gamut monitor, because the sRGB file simply does not contain the information about these out-of-gamut colours in the first place.

If I want to properly exploit the full range of colours that can be reproduced on an extended gamut monitor, my best and most flexible option for future photos is to shoot raw.  

However, that still leaves the unfortunate issue of thousands of sRGB JPEGs that I have taken over the last 7 years or so. Millions of people must be in the same situation, and millions more will end up in the same situation as sRGB JPEG is still the most common default camera file type today. As per my previous statements above, conventional wisdom apparently has it that an sRGB file does not contain information about the out-of-gamut colours in the first place, so that's the end of the matter, and those out-of-gamut colours cannot be displayed.

However, is that strictly speaking true?

It would be true if the out of gamut colours were simply clipped to the nearest available in-gamut colour, but that method is not usually used for photographic work. I would presume that perceptual gamut mapping is used, in which case the out-of-gamut colours are NOT lost, but are compressed into the narrower sRGB colour space, and this is a "mostly" reversible process. Some useful references re gamut mapping are :-

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...-conversion.htm (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-space-conversion.htm)
http://www.normankoren.com/color_management.html (http://www.normankoren.com/color_management.html)

To further make the point, perceptual mapping is also known as "Maintain Full Gamut". That sets the cat amongst the pigeons, doesn't it?

That means that it should be possible to convert my sRGB JPEGs to AdobeRGB (aRGB), for example, while mostly retaining the information about colours that were captured by the camera, but out of the sRGB gamut. Can Photoshop, for example, convert from sRGB to aRGB, mostly maintaining the full gamut as I have described? If not, then why not?

It also means, that even without me specifically converting my sRBG files to aRGB, it should be possible to open sRGB files in any intelligent software/viewer, the application should uncompress the restricted gamut of colours within the sRGB file into its wide internal working colour space, and then optimally (probably perceptually) re-map the full gamut of colours to an extended gamut monitor, or a printer, or whatever.

In other words, provided perceptual mapping is used to create the sRGB in the first place, and presumably information about the type of rendering used is tagged to the file,  then what's the problem? The application that reads the file should seamlessly take care of everything, optimally displaying the full range of colours captured by the camera on any monitor. Is this actually what happens when an sRGB file is opened and displayed by Photoshop, for example. If not, then why not?

Colin        
 
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: Czornyj on March 16, 2010, 04:52:01 am
Quote from: col
It would be true if the out of gamut colours were simply clipped to the nearest available in-gamut colour, but that method is not usually used for photographic work. I would presume that perceptual gamut mapping is used, in which case the out-of-gamut colours are NOT lost, but are compressed into the narrower sRGB colour space, and this is a "mostly" reversible process.
Read it again, it's not that simple:
Quote
This means that conversion using relative colorimetric intent is irreversible, while perceptual can be reversed.  This is not to say that converting from space A to B and then back to A again using perceptual will reproduce the original; this would require careful use of tone curves to reverse the color compression caused by the conversion.

Besides, matrix ICC profiles v2 have no perceptual rendering intent. And when you're rendering the image to narrow editing space you can clip some tones intentionally, plus there'll be further data loss caused by 8 bit pallete conversion and jpeg compression.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 16, 2010, 06:19:17 am
Quote from: Czornyj
Read it again, it's not that simple:
This means that conversion using relative colorimetric intent is irreversible, while perceptual can be reversed. This is not to say that converting from space A to B and then back to A again using perceptual will reproduce the original; this would require careful use of tone curves to reverse the color compression caused by the conversion.

And when you're rendering the image to narrow editing space you can clip some tones intentionally, plus there'll be further data loss caused by 8 bit pallete conversion and jpeg compression.

I had already read it carefully, and I chose my words carefully as well when I used the term "mostly" reversible.

Let's be realistic. The out-of-gamut colours would nearly always represent only a small part of the image, and getting them back is a luxury, not a necessity. If the out of gamut colours can be recovered even in an approximate and imperfect manner, then then that is good enough, and would presumably be better than not getting them back at all.

My basic point remains valid. Depending on exactly how the camera encodes the wide gamut of captured colours into the sRGB file, it may be possible to substantially recover information about the out-of-gamut colours, which is an interesting possibility that had not been considered in the discussions to date.

Quote
Besides, matrix ICC profiles v2 have no perceptual rendering intent.
Can you elaborate? Does that mean that digital cameras do not use perceptual gamut mapping when producing the sRGB JPEG? If not, what method do they use, and why? Do all camera makes and models use the same gamut mapping method? I have a bad feeling that the exact details might get very complicated very quickly.  


Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: Czornyj on March 16, 2010, 07:24:26 am
Quote from: col
I had already read it carefully, and I chose my words carefully as well when I used the term "mostly" reversible.

Let's be realistic. The out-of-gamut colours would nearly always represent only a small part of the image, and getting them back is a luxury, not a necessity. If the out of gamut colours can be recovered even in an approximate and imperfect manner, then then that is good enough, and would presumably be better than not getting them back at all.

My basic point remains valid. Depending on exactly how the camera encodes the wide gamut of captured colours into the sRGB file, it may be possible to substantially recover information about the out-of-gamut colours, which is an interesting possibility that had not been considered in the discussions to date.


Can you elaborate? Does that mean that digital cameras do not use perceptual gamut mapping when producing the sRGB JPEG? If not, what method do they use, and why? Do all camera makes and models use the same gamut mapping method? I have a bad feeling that the exact details might get very complicated very quickly.

In a real world there's no simple method to get the colors back, and even if there would be a method, the information is partially lost by 8-bit encoding and jpeg compression. Digital cameras use perceptual gamut mappings, but I belive not only each camera maker has his own gamut mapping methods, but there are also many mapping options in each camera. The perceptual rendering intent is not always available - for example there's only v2 AdobeRGB ICC profile, so you can't convert sRGB image to AdobeRGB using perceptual intent. And so or so it wouldn't reproduce the original colors.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: digitaldog on March 16, 2010, 09:50:53 am
Quote from: col
Can you elaborate? Does that mean that digital cameras do not use perceptual gamut mapping when producing the sRGB JPEG? If not, what method do they use, and why? Do all camera makes and models use the same gamut mapping method? I have a bad feeling that the exact details might get very complicated very quickly.

They don’t use ICC profiles for such mapping so its nearly impossible to say what they use in terms of mapping and clipping as this is all very proprietary.

Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: crames on March 16, 2010, 05:48:55 pm
Quote from: col
Let's be realistic. The out-of-gamut colours would nearly always represent only a small part of the image, and getting them back is a luxury, not a necessity. If the out of gamut colours can be recovered even in an approximate and imperfect manner, then then that is good enough, and would presumably be better than not getting them back at all.
       
        My basic point remains valid. Depending on exactly how the camera encodes the wide gamut of captured colours into the sRGB file, it may be possible to substantially recover information about the out-of-gamut colours, which is an interesting possibility that had not been considered in the discussions to date.
       
        There used to be Print Image Matching (P.I.M) from Epson, in which compatible cameras reversibly encoded the out-of-gamut colors. There is still a P.I.M plug-in for Photoshop available from the Epson web site. The plug-in also enables EXIF PRINT. I remember the plug-in working quite well, but besides the extra gamut it performs other enhancement to the JPEGs such as saturation and contrast boosts that are not controllable (but not terrible, either, for printing snap shots).
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 16, 2010, 07:52:40 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
They don’t use ICC profiles for such mapping so its nearly impossible to say what they use in terms of mapping and clipping as this is all very proprietary.

Hmmm. I think that pretty much sums up the bottom line.

Although it might in principle be possible to largely recover the out-of-gamut colours in some cases, the lack of any standardization by camera manufacturers means that, for all practical purposes, the out-of-gamut colurs in sRGB JPEGS produced in-camera are lost forever.

In other words, it remains true that the extended gamut of many of today's monitors is completely wasted when viewing sRGB JPEGs, as most camera produce by default. Sad, silly, but true.

Microsoft's future solution appears to be a very wide colour space known as scRGB, and a new JPEG standard known as JPEG-XR. However, these are still in their infancy, and may or may not eventually become universal standards.

For the foreseeable future, if you want to use the greater range of colours available from an extended gamut monitor, then you need to shoot RAW, or in AdobeRGB if supported by your camera, and use a 3rd party colour-managed application for editing and viewing your pictures.

From my point of view the topic is pretty much wrapped up, though others may enjoy debating the merits of Microsoft's new solution.

Colin  

PS. I'll probably end up buying an extended gamut monitor anyway, as the better ones tend to be, and then set it to emulate sRGB ....  
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: digitaldog on March 16, 2010, 08:00:16 pm
Quote from: col
In other words, it remains true that the extended gamut of many of today's monitors is completely wasted when viewing sRGB JPEGs, as most camera produce by default. Sad, silly, but true.

One could say that using sRGB is a complete waste of the data most capture and output devices can produce. I simply don’t see how throwing the baby out with the bath water (complaining about how wide gamut displays deal with a fairly archaic and, expect for web publishing, worthless encoding color space for the 21st century).
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: col on March 16, 2010, 09:00:36 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
One could say that using sRGB is a complete waste of the data most capture and output devices can produce.
I agree entirely.

Quote
I simply don’t see how throwing the baby out with the bath water (complaining about how wide gamut displays deal with a fairly archaic and, expect for web publishing, worthless encoding color space for the 21st century).
My complaint has never been with wide gamut displays. Current technology can produce wide gamut displays at low cost, which I think is great, and we can expect even lower cost and wider gamut in the future. It's just a pity that the majority of photographers (and overall, it IS the vast majority of photographers), who shoot in-camera-default sRGB JPEG, cannot exploit the benefit of these wide gamut monitors. If you look at the bigger picture, rather than your own situation or mine, then surely you must concede there is a problem here.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: lmwacctg on March 17, 2010, 03:15:16 pm
Quote from: Mike Bailey
Beware of the Dell 2408WFP.  I have one I bought last August and debated returning it, but ended up living with the shortcomings it has.  The worst is that it has very uneven brightness across the screen.  The left side for 2 or 3 inches in much brighter than the center.  The right side shows similar problems, but not quite as badly.  This is a very frequent problem among many people who have bought that monitor.  Some think it is resolved by different firmware fixes.  Some know better than that.  If you go to the forums on Dell's web site and search on this, you'll find enough to probably convince you.

http://en.community.dell.com/forums/p/1916...1.aspx#19400841 (http://en.community.dell.com/forums/p/19166732/19400841.aspx#19400841)

Just a fair warning.  Best to take that one off your list.  I use it now as a backup monitor and not on my main work machine.  There are other problems, perhaps related to operating system and graphics cards, but it often will go into standby (black screen) mode soon after booting up and/or randomly after being on some time.

Mike

______________
http://BlueRockPhotography.com (http://BlueRockPhotography.com)

Well, I acquired a Dell 2408WFP in February 09. It has worked like a charm ever since. None of these issues have shown up for me. Profiled with my ColorMunki I am very satisfied with the results and the ability to see what will print on my Epson 2880. There are of course many other steps one needs to take  (particularly with your workstation environment and lighting), but the experts in this forum have many posts that can lead you through that. They have helped me greatly.

Good luck in your selection.

Don
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: Adam L on March 17, 2010, 04:22:16 pm
I have a friend who has researched monitors for me to use for my photography work.  I'm just an amateur but wanted a monitor that would accurately reproduce color.   This is his response:

Monitors:
For a LCD monitor you'll want one that has IPS LCD panel technology, these give the best picture quality.  You'll be hard pressed to find these at local stores as most places will only carry lower end LCD's that use cheap TN panel technology. All of the monitors I list below are IPS LCD's

There are 2 new monitors from HP releasing next Wednesday and shipping April 5th from what I've read. These are the ZR22w & ZR24w. MSRP should be around $289 & $425, but may be lower with EPP.  If you don't want to wait to see what reivews say about these monitors, here is what I recommend....

On a budget:
NEC EA231WMI-BK 23 (about $330 shipped)
http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product...ad-c2fa8204f2a0 (http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=a8f8336f-6f87-4065-b3ad-c2fa8204f2a0)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/6450...screen_LCD.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/645064-REG/NEC_EA231WMI_BK_MultiSync_23_Widescreen_LCD.html)
Review
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_ea231wmi.htm (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_ea231wmi.htm)

The review also compares the LCD to 2 other models you may want to consider depending on your budget. The HP LP2475w and the Dell U2410. They are both 1" bigger and about $200 more. Each has their pros and cons, but to get a REALLY good monitor you'll need to spend a lot more.

More expensive:
 NEC LCD2490WUXi2-BK $877
http://www.nec-display.com/ap/en_display/l...90_2/index.html (http://www.nec-display.com/ap/en_display/lcd2490_2/index.html)
http://www.amazon.com/24-1920X1200-Wide-Bl...8/ref=de_a_smtd (http://www.amazon.com/24-1920X1200-Wide-Black-LCD/dp/tech-data/B002C9KAO8/ref=de_a_smtd)
Review
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_2490wuxi.htm (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_2490wuxi.htm)
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: tokengirl on March 17, 2010, 05:36:20 pm
Quote from: col
It's just a pity that the majority of photographers (and overall, it IS the vast majority of photographers), who shoot in-camera-default sRGB JPEG, cannot exploit the benefit of these wide gamut monitors.

I suspect that most people who shoot in-camera-default sRGB JPEG don't know the difference, and they don't want to either.  Plenty of them will buy these wide gamut monitors and will be absolutely thrilled with all the extra colors they think they can see just because it says wide gamut on the box.  

For those who do care, the solution is simple: stop shooting in-camera-default sRGB JPEGS.  It is far easier to learn to process RAW files than it is to convince Microsoft and other such companies that they are doing things wrong.  Being mad at these companies will not make your photos look better no matter what monitor you buy.
Title: Choosing a monitor
Post by: b2martin on March 18, 2010, 05:02:30 pm
Adam, do you know if the new HP monitors have LED backlight?