Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: alan a on December 27, 2013, 10:47:51 am
-
My apologies in advance for the long posting, but this discusses what may be the Achilles heel of 4k monitors for editing of still photography, as well as for more general use, and the issue discussed below was not covered in previous threads (at least not that I could find). Many thanks in advance for any input, advice or comments from the experts on the forum. I welcome any corrections if I have misstated the situation.
The forthcoming release of the new Mac Pro in February has increased interest in separate 4K monitors, since the Mac Pro is specifically designed to drive such 4k monitors, and Apple is selling the Sharp PN-K321 4K monitor as part of advance orders for the Mac Pro.
However, the future release and use of 4K monitors will only draw more attention to one of the serious flaws of the Mac OS.
Namely the fact that it is impossible to increase the size of fonts on a system–wide basis. The best illustration is System Preferences in the Mac OS, which on a 27” iMac is a small box with even smaller type, unless you are sitting one foot away from the screen. By contrast, the ability to increase fonts on a system-wide basis has been a feature included within Windows for about 20 years, at least as far back as Windows 95. You only need to google this issue to find hundreds of complaints over the years about the fact that this is not included in the Mac OS. There are frequent reports of many older people, with weak eyesight, who want to purchase a Mac, instead purchasing Windows based PCs, so that they can increase the size of the fonts on a system-wide basis. (The ability to zoom on a Mac is not a credible alternative, since zooming fonts at their largest size usually results in fuzzy text. Ditto with any suggestion that this can be solved by changing resolutions, as all monitors work best at their native resolution and look terrible at any other resolution.)
The iMac has a resolution of 2560 x 1440, the same as the separate thunderbolt monitor. (The NEC mentioned below is only two inches larger with about the same resolution — 2560 x 1600.) At this resolution system fonts within the Mac OS can be very small. At the present time this is simply a serious flaw in the Mac OS.
With the emergence of 4k displays — which can be used with the Mac Pro — this could become a fatal flaw of the Mac OS.
The specs for the Sharp 4K monitor, as stated on the Apple website under the sales options for the new Mac Pro, state that the Sharp has a huge increase in resolution to 3840 by 2160, even though it is also only a 31” monitor, and only an inch larger than the NEC at 2560 x 1600. At that resolution, on the Sharp 4K 31” monitor, System fonts in the Mac OS will likely be absolutely tiny, if not microscopic. (I haven’t seen the Sharp, as no retailers in my city will ever carry it, and if anyone has seen it — with the Sharp running the Mac OS — they can better comment.) The Systems Preference box should be the size of postage stamp on the Sharp. This should finally force Apple to address this issue. Better late than never, since Apple is 20 years late as compared with Windows.
Some will respond that the fonts can be increased within individual apps or programs. But is that really true, and can they be increased enough? The only setting in Lightroom is between small and large, and large is not very large. The problem of small Lightroom fonts (at the "large" setting) on larger monitors and resolutions also results in many repots in Adobe forums and elsewhere, with users recommending various hacks and configuration tools to attempt to solve the problem of small fonts. But none of these hacks anticipated the huge resolution of the Sharp and the likely microscopic fonts that will result. The Sharp would require a very large increase in font sizes, and then the fonts would overrun the panels and the design of Lightroom, and the resulting jumble would likely be unusable. That unacceptable result is what some users have already reported in various Adobe forums, and that is only to hack the Lightroom fonts for a resolution like the iMac or NEC at 2560 x 1400 — let alone the Sharp at 3840 x 2160.
Lightroom and the Mac OS serves as a warning that the new Sharp 4K may be impractical, and possibly unusable for photographic editing given current limitations of the software and the Mac OS with regards to font, menus and tool bars. (I suspect that same problem applies to Photoshop, and does it also apply to other Adobe products for video editing — which is the big selling point for the combo that Apple is selling -- the Mac Pro and the Sharp 4k monitor?)
I am considering the purchase of a Mac Pro. So related to that, and the monitor to accompany it, I welcome any advice or input on the following:
(1) For still photography (not video), and general use including internet, mail and word processing, which is better of three choices: (1) the NEC PA302W-BK-SV with built in Spectraview calibration; (2) one of the Apple monitors, or (3) one of the new 4k monitors like the Sharp or the Dell (*assuming* Apple and other software developers fixes the issue described above, which probably would take many months, or years, if ever).
(2) I have an older 30” NEC spectraview monitor that is about 6 or 7 years old. Obviously it has faded. But has the NEC technology really improved in the last 6 or 7 years, as my old NEC must have some type of hot tube for the backlight, and is very dull in appearance and not as sharp as Apple displays. I realize part of that is the NEC mat screen versus the Apple glossy screen, but am wondering if the newer NEC AH-IPS LCD panel will look better and sharper than my 6 year old NEC because it might use more advanced LED technology?
(3) I presume that the Sharp has greater pixel density although I can’t find those equivalent specs for the Apple or NEC monitors. But does this result in a sharper monitor for still photography using Lightroom or Photoshop? (Again, assuming the font size problem described above can be fixed.)
(4) Has anyone actually worked with a Sharp to know if it calibrates well for color reproduction?
(5) What about screen image burn-in on the Sharp — there is one very negative user report on Amazon in that regard.
(6) I’ve read that one of the advantages of other 4K monitors is that they can do 1080P, at least for games, with the implication that the Sharp does not do that. Is that true and does it matter?
(7) Why did Apple pull the Sharp in Britain, and stop selling it, but have continued to do so in the US? Apple pulled it suddenly and without notice in Britain.
-
This helps a lot but its not a perfect solution.
http://www.bresink.com/osx/TinkerTool.html
I also use Firefox with nosquint...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nosquint/
I'm using a NEC 271
-
Your NEC 271 has a native resolution of 2560 x 1440. The hacks and software you suggest may work with that, but it is very unlikely that they can increase fonts to a readable size on the Sharp 4k with a resolution of 3840 x 2160. And if they do, the fonts would simply be too large for the menus and tool bars.
With regards to Tinker Toy and its companion software, the developers explicitly state that it can NOT increase the system fonts in the Mac OS. So the small type in Systems Preferences would still be small, and would likely be microscopically small and unreadable on a 4k monitor.
Apple needs to provide a means to increase fonts on a system-wide basis, as does Windows. That, plus hacks like Tinker Toy and the various configuration hacks for Lightroom, might work for a 30" monitor at 2560 x 1600. But I wonder if the basic design of most software, and the Mac OS, may not be compatible with a 30" 4k monitor at 3840 x 2160. The fonts would be absolutely tiny, and blowing them up to be large enough would mean they overlap the boundaries of the menus and tool bars, resulting in a jumbled and ugly mess.
Or you would have to constantly zoom in and out to read the menus and tool bars. But that largely defeats the purpose of a 4k monitor, since the zoom itself sacrifices the sharpness of the image. And the thought of constantly zooming in and out is mind numbing, and it the exact opposite of the convenience and ease of use that the Mac is known for.
Of course, I have never seen a 4k monitor and never will in my city of residence. So I'd like to hear from experts who have actually used one that was using the MAC OS, and who can also comment on how it works with software like Lightroom and Photoshop.
-
You are absolutely right but its the best solution for now. Clearly this is an issue Apple must resolve at the OS level. Not sure why they have failed to do so yet.
-
The need for 4K monitor would be for a video image or still image in Photoshop. With such a setup, one would use a separate monitor at a much lower resolution for tools and palettes making this a non-issue.
-
One aspect of super high rez displays is the fact that apps like Lightroom that must rip the preview image from a raw file to show updates to development must do so and much, much larger amounts of data. Running Lightroom on a 4K display would be painfully slow unless you size the LR window way down. I've already seen people find standard 30" displays really slow to redraw...careful what you wish for, you may get it and find it not to your liking :~)
-
The need for 4K monitor would be for a video image or still image in Photoshop. With such a setup, one would use a separate monitor at a much lower resolution for tools and palettes making this a non-issue.
Thanks for that clarification. I had not thought of that solution. It would still be very helpful, for anyone using a standard 30" display, if Apple updated the Mac OS and provided a means to increase the size of fonts on a system-wide basis. If the emergence of high res 4K monitors finally forces/encourages Apple to do so, then we will all benefit, including those who stick with standard monitors.
See below, as I guess I will be in that category, if the new Mac Pro does not have the horsepower to drive a 4K monitor at fast speeds while using LR. I may still eventually get a Mac Pro, so I am not stuck with the built-in iMac display and can instead go with the NEC 30" with Spectraview (but not 4k) -- which I assume all of you experts consider to be superior to the Apple and iMac displays? I am curious to know if the NECs have really improved in the last seven years, as compared with the now ancient LCD monitor that I've got that looks pretty fuzzy compared to the iMac.
One aspect of super high rez displays is the fact that apps like Lightroom that must rip the preview image from a raw file to show updates to development must do so and much, much larger amounts of data. Running Lightroom on a 4K display would be painfully slow unless you size the LR window way down. I've already seen people find standard 30" displays really slow to redraw...careful what you wish for, you may get it and find it not to your liking :~)
Thanks very much for that excellent explanation. One question, though. Would the high horse power of the new Mac Pro, with two graphics cards and 4 or 6 CPU cores, make up the difference for a high res display and draw the previews as fast -- as compared with a slower iMac on a standard display? Apple doesn't address this scenario specifically (using the Mac Pro and a high res 4k monitor for LR). However, the implication, based on the sales pitch from Apple (see quotes below) -- is that the new Mac Pro is designed to do precisely that. At least with video, if not with LR.
Apple says this with regards to still photography processing on the new Mac Pro: "Edit your images in 4K. With the new Mac Pro and powerful multiple-display support in OS X Mavericks, you can work with an image full screen on one display while you work with your photo browser on another. Connect a 4K display — with over 8 million pixels — and see your photos in more detail than ever before."
Apple says this with regards to video editing: "4K performance that’s nothing short of spectacular. Work pixel-for-pixel in 4K without slowing down, thanks to dual AMD FirePro workstation-class GPUs and the latest Xeon E5 processors in Mac Pro — a merger that delivers the breathtaking capability to run 8 picture-in-picture streams of 4K video at once in Final Cut Pro X (or many more streams of HD video). Combine that with the power to drive up to three 4K displays and process multiple layers of complex effects in real time, and you have a video editing powerhouse."
If the new Mac Pro can't drive LR at acceptable speeds on a high res 4K monitor (including drawing full screen previews), then I'd say their advertising is more than a little misleading. Because on top of the above statements, Apple is selling the Sharp as a recommended accessory for the Mac Pro. If the Mac Pro does not, in fact, have the horsepower to drive the Sharp with regards to full screen LR previews, then there will be some very dissatisfied customers.
Having said that -- this issue, of really slow drawing of previews on a 4K display, is precisely what I did not know. (I assumed the opposite based on the sales pitch from Apple.) It sounds like the downside (the time required to rip and display previews) clearly outweighs any advantage offered by a higher res 4k preview. And if you have to significantly size down the LR window on a 30" high res monitor to have LR operate with reasonable speed, what is the point of a 30" display? Even if the tool bars, palettes and menus were moved to a different monitor, as suggested by Jerry Rock, the preview on the 4k display would still be slow. It would drive me nuts to sit around and wait a long time for previews to draw. A standard 30" display, like the NEC, would be a much better choice for LR based on your explanation, as it would combine faster speed (compared to a 4K display) and the larger image.
There have been other threads on the 4k displays related to use for still photography, but that point and great explanation was not provided -- so thank you very much for educating all of us on that critical point.
-
No one stepped in to correct the OP, really?
There's no flaw on OS X side. You'll been asked which resolution to adopt and the default one will be a Retina 1920x1080. Basically it's exactly the opposite the OP described: fonts/icon will appear -larger- to the eye and way more defined.
You'll than be able to choose higher resolutions up to the native one, which of course is going to show tiny fonts and icons, but only because the user chose that.
What I dislike is the fact that my 2560x1440 screen is not going to be doubled in density. I would have preferred a single 27" 5120x2880 than a much less dense 32" 3840x2160, but that's another story.
Please, before talking about serious flaws, learn what's going on.
-
No one stepped in to correct the OP, really?
There's no flaw on OS X side. You'll been asked which resolution to adopt and the default one will be a Retina 1920x1080. Basically it's exactly the opposite the OP described: fonts/icon will appear -larger- to the eye and way more defined.
You'll than be able to choose higher resolutions up to the native one, which of course is going to show tiny fonts and icons, but only because the user chose that.
What I dislike is the fact that my 2560x1440 screen is not going to be doubled in density. I would have preferred a single 27" 5120x2880 than a much less dense 32" 3840x2160, but that's another story.
Please, before talking about serious flaws, learn what's going on.
Uh only one small problem with setting the screen resolution to something other than native...its makes everything blurry.
-
One aspect of super high rez displays is the fact that apps like Lightroom that must rip the preview image from a raw file to show updates to development must do so and much, much larger amounts of data. Running Lightroom on a 4K display would be painfully slow unless you size the LR window way down. I've already seen people find standard 30" displays really slow to redraw...careful what you wish for, you may get it and find it not to your liking :~)
This just highlights a possible design weakness in Lightroom (and many other applications, such as 3d games): the output is rendered at the native output resolution, even when this results in intolerable latency.
One might hope for a raw image editing system that first rendered each image within a reasonable time no matter what the source pixel count or display pixel count was (sacrificing image quality and/or disk space to achieve this), then took its time to re-render the image at higher quality in due time.
With displays that match or exceed the capabilities of our vision in terms of spatial resolution, optimal quality in the higher spatial frequencies may not be very critical.
-h
-
Uh only one small problem with setting the screen resolution to something other than native...its makes everything blurry.
Not entirely true. When working on resolutions above the recommended one, the whole screen is still "doubled" as hypothetic huge retina screen and only then resized down. That leads to much better results than a mere resize.
Still we agree that any non-native resolution is not ideal at all, but "blurry" is quite different from "less than perfect".
-
Running Lightroom on a 4K display would be painfully slow unless you size the LR window way down. I've already seen people find standard 30" displays really slow to redraw...careful what you wish for, you may get it and find it not to your liking :~)
Jeff, that is true for my mid-2010 15" MBP.
I don't think that a ~2-3x increase in image pixels to be shown (I currently run a 2560x1440 display) could put a 2013 Mac Pro in trouble. Do you?
-
Not entirely true. When working on resolutions above the recommended one, the whole screen is still "doubled" as hypothetic huge retina screen and only then resized down. That leads to much better results than a mere resize.
Still we agree that any non-native resolution is not ideal at all, but "blurry" is quite different from "less than perfect".
You don't get the option to use resolution above the native monitor resolution and anything lower does get blurry. You can try and spin it anyway you wish but this still a problem with the OS.
-
You don't get the option to use resolution above the native monitor resolution and anything lower does get blurry. You can try and spin it anyway you wish but this still a problem with the OS.
It's hard to speak of native resolution with retina screens. Let's talk about "optimal" resolution, which mimics the old 1920x1080, now with double pixel density and quadruple resolution.
You can then go further than that by choosing higher resolution than 1080p, while of course staying below 3840x2160 effective pixels.
Much like current retina 15" MBP I bet you'll be able to choose a fake 2560x1440 and others.
-
Another fly in the ointment is sharpening for web output.
The images may look beautiful on your screen at home, but they are going to look very different on everyone elses lower resolution monitor. I already notice the difference in the amount of sharpening needed on my Dell U2711 screen vs my 24", and the pixel density difference there is not nearly as dramatic.
-
No one stepped in to correct the OP, really?
There's no flaw on OS X side. You'll been asked which resolution to adopt and the default one will be a Retina 1920x1080. Basically it's exactly the opposite the OP described: fonts/icon will appear -larger- to the eye and way more defined.
You'll than be able to choose higher resolutions up to the native one, which of course is going to show tiny fonts and icons, but only because the user chose that.
What I dislike is the fact that my 2560x1440 screen is not going to be doubled in density. I would have preferred a single 27" 5120x2880 than a much less dense 32" 3840x2160, but that's another story.
Please, before talking about serious flaws, learn what's going on.
Still we agree that any non-native resolution is not ideal at all, but "blurry" is quite different from "less than perfect".
You should follow the example of Schewe and others, who provided a factual response without a condescending comment that I should "learn what's going on." I posted here for that purpose, and SPECIFICALLY said "many thanks in advance for any input, advice or comments from the experts on the forum. I welcome any corrections if I have misstated the situation." The condescending attitude is not necessary.
What monitor are you referring to that has a resolution of 1920 x 1080? That is NOT the 4K Sharp, which was the focus of my posting. The native resolution for the Sharp is 3840 x 2160. Changing the native resolution of any monitor results in a display that is clearly not as sharp as the native resolution. Burry is a pretty good description of what happens in that case. Frankly, someone would be nuts to spend $3600 on a monitor for a result, to use your choice of words, that is "less than perfect." Why spend $3600 for a less than perfect result? Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of a 4k monitor?
So, in order to defend the Mac OS from any criticism, you say this: "You'll than be able to choose higher resolutions up to the native one, which of course is going to show tiny fonts and icons, but only because the user chose that."
That was the whole point of my posting, was it not? That the native -- the correct and ideal -- resolution for the Sharp 4K would result in tiny fonts and icons.
And, yes, there is a flaw on the OS side. It is simply a statement of fact that the Mac OS can't increase the size of fonts on a system-wide basis -- as you can on any version of Windows for the last 20 years. This is a problem on the 27" iMac, let alone on a 30" NEC with a slightly larger resolution. Individual opinions as to what is "too small" may differ, but there are hundreds of complaints on the web about this shortcoming in the Mac OS as it relates to a 27" iMac, let alone larger monitors. One of the posters in this thread already commented on his own work-arounds to fix this problem, but unfortunately, none of them work with the system fonts in the Mac OS.
Frankly, it is the earlier postings that spoke to these issues. I don't think the Mac OS and LR is even usable at the Sharp resolution, and Jerry Rock addressed that when he explained that the Sharp would be used only for the image, with all menus and tool bars on a separate monitor. So anyone who buys a Sharp must accept that it can't be the main monitor, for everyday use, because the Mac OS would be unreadable. Unless you want to change the resolution to that which is "less than perfect," and how imperfect that would be is the question. If the Sharp is like most monitors, it would look quite a bit worse at a significantly different resolution. At that point a different monitor with a native resolution that is actually readable would be a better choice for a main monitor. In that scenario, the question is whether a standard (not 4k) monitor at a readable native resolution would look better than the Sharp when the Sharp is changed to a significantly different resolution than it is intended for.
Schewe explained that LR would be very slow on a 4k display due to the time to draw the previews. I would, however, welcome his comments on whether the new Mac Pro with two video cards could speed up LR to the point that it would be useable. See my above posting that quotes the Apple sales pitch for the Mac Pro, since Apple clearly suggests that the Mac Pro works with 4k displays for all of these purposes -- and works at a very fast speed.
The question is whether that is, in fact, true.
-
I would, however, welcome his comments on whether the new Mac Pro with two video cards could speed up LR to the point that it would be useable. See my above posting that quotes the Apple sales pitch for the Mac Pro, since Apple clearly suggests that the Mac Pro works with 4k displays for all of these purposes -- and works at a very fast speed.
The question is whether that is, in fact, true.
I don't believe that LR uses the GPU in the video card, the CPU is the main engine for preview rendering. In addition, LR is not super efficient at using multiple CPU cores.
I wouldn't expect the new Mac Pro to be a giant leap forward in performance.
-
Many thanks for that clarification!
-
4k monitors will become more and more common, just as HD ones did and before them the various increases in resolution and size. 4k TVs are now available, so in a few years it will be fairly mainstream.
At some point, Apple and Adobe (for Lightroom) will need to address this. PS already leverages the GPU so obviously it's an option for LR and would make a huge difference, even with the more restricted choices of GPU you get with Mac.
But quite apart from LR uses, regular users will want 4k displays as the price comes down and content increases and so on. Retina is one idea/solution but it lacks the flexibility of simply being able to choose the correct resolution and then scale your fonts and system icons to a level that suits your monitor, your eyes and your usage.
Alan is entirely correct to highlight this as a current and potentially ongoing and growing issue. I do believe, though, that Apple will eventually address it - the only question is whether they do it in a flexible manner or only in a way that supports their own hardware in their own paradigm (which is quite a common thing for them to do). Either solution may work just fine, but there's more chance of broadening their market with a little 20-year-old flexibility.
-
You should follow the example of Schewe and others, who provided a factual response without a condescending comment that I should "learn what's going on." I posted here for that purpose, and SPECIFICALLY said "many thanks in advance for any input, advice or comments from the experts on the forum. I welcome any corrections if I have misstated the situation." The condescending attitude is not necessary.
Your post is amusing :)
You indeed judged something, talking about "serious flaw" when, to put it straight without lengthy posts, you don't know what you're talking about.
Either you ask for help and you'll receive kind response, or you express a false judgement on objective matters and be prepared for someone to step in and correct you.
Listen, you keep talking about 1920x1080 retina resolution as if that would cause blurry shapes. Clearly you don't know anything about how OS X manages high resolutions.
So, my advise is not to think that you're smarter than those who work in Cupertino and just -learn- how the system works. You may find it interesting.
Retina technology and concepts (similar to HiDPI) appeared way back when the iPhone 4 came out. You'll find lots if explanations.
Nothing is blurry, quite the opposite.
It -is- a factual response, not an opinion.
Is it a better approach in respect to Redmond's one? Maybe, maybe not. I think it is, but definitely you won't have miniscule fonts or icons.
So, less naive judgements, more learning.
Happy holidays.
-
Alan, if the size isn't a major factor for you (and read what Jeff wrote about LR), I'd suggest the newer NEC is the best option and yes, they have improved over the years.
-
4k monitors will become more and more common, just as HD ones did and before them the various increases in resolution and size. 4k TVs are now available, so in a few years it will be fairly mainstream.
At some point, Apple and Adobe (for Lightroom) will need to address this. PS already leverages the GPU so obviously it's an option for LR and would make a huge difference, even with the more restricted choices of GPU you get with Mac.
But quite apart from LR uses, regular users will want 4k displays as the price comes down and content increases and so on. Retina is one idea/solution but it lacks the flexibility of simply being able to choose the correct resolution and then scale your fonts and system icons to a level that suits your monitor, your eyes and your usage.
Alan is entirely correct to highlight this as a current and potentially ongoing and growing issue. I do believe, though, that Apple will eventually address it - the only question is whether they do it in a flexible manner or only in a way that supports their own hardware in their own paradigm (which is quite a common thing for them to do). Either solution may work just fine, but there's more chance of broadening their market with a little 20-year-old flexibility.
Thanks very much for the observations, and kind comments. It is good to know that I did identify a legitimate issue that Apple and Adobe, among others, need to address in the next few years.
-
Alan, if the size isn't a major factor for you (and read what Jeff wrote about LR), I'd suggest the newer NEC is the best option and yes, they have improved over the years.
The problem with forums is that there are many self-proclaimed experts. Then there are the real experts, who publish in the field; work as full time consultants; or actually design software and hardware, and who are recognized for their expertise. You are among those who can legitimately be referred to as experts, and I therefore welcome and am delighted that you chose to comment.
Andrew, I remember when you were involved with the Sony Artisan, one of the last old style monitors that was made specifically for photographers. I purchased one due to your strong recommendation for that product. So I have been following your recommendations for many years, and I'm sure you have influenced many of the photographers who read this forum over the years.
So if I may ask you another question, because I believe others will benefit from your response as well. This is related to the topic of this thread, namely why certain high end monitors may not be fully functional with an iMac -- but are they with the new Mac Pro? So this is related to which monitors are fully functional with the Mac Pro, or in this case, an iMac.
In the last year Wacom released the Cintiq 24HD Touch. At one point I looked into it, but ultimately rejected it due to its very large size and footprint. (At least, too large for my desk.) That unit produces 1.07 billion colors and 97% of Adobe RGB. (*** See footnote below.) Unless I misunderstood him, Wacom tech support said that to fully deliver this range of color and RGB coverage, the full sized displayport cable and output must be used -- and not DVI, which is also included. (The odd aspect of this statement is that DVI is what is provided for ease of use, and the back of the Wacom must be unscrewed to even access the Displayport cable.)
Tech support for Wacom told me that the unit could not deliver its full potential on an iMac, because that high video quality could only be delivered through the displayport output. And that the necessary displayport input is typically found on PCs with advanced graphics cards, and is not found on the iMac.
In addition, Wacom recommended connecting that 24HD display to the iMac using a DVI to mini displayport converter (specifically a Kanex Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter model IADAPTDVI). Which means the DVI output would be used, rather than the full sized displayport output and full sized displayport cable on the back of the Wacom. I later asked customer service at Wacom why they don't recommend a Mini DisplayPort to full size DisplayPort adapter instead, as this would presumably deliver the full billion colors and output on the Wacom 24HD display, since it would use the DisplayPort and not DVI. The guy in customer service didn't know for certain, and thought such an adapter might not work with temperamental iMacs, that are known to have problems driving large monitors. (The web is filled with hundreds of reports of Mac users trying countless adapters and converters to find the magic one that will drive large monitors.)
That led to another question -- is the problem that prevents the Wacom from displaying its full resolution on an iMac related to the video card in the iMac, or is it related to the mini displayport? I asked if the new Mac Pro, with its advanced video cards, had solved that problem. But the Mac Pro still uses mini displayports. (To be clear and fair to the guy at Wacom customer support, he didn't know that answer, and referred me to more senior tech support, who was not available on the day in question.)
So that is my question. When Wacom said that an iMac can't deliver on the full potential of its new 24HD display, is it referring to the video cards and processing in the iMac, or is it referring to the method of connection -- the minidisplay or thunderbolt port? ( I assume Wacom is referring to video cards and not the method of connection.) Because if it is the former, namely the video cards, has the new Mac Pro solved that? But if it is the latter, and the Mac Pro is still limited by the mini displayport, then why is it that the Mac Pro can drive 4k monitors but not a Wacom to its full potential?
Either way, does this limitation in the iMac adversely impact other high end displays, such as the top of the line NEC, when they are connected to an iMac?
A footnote on the above, with a request for more clarification, which again, I believe would be beneficial for many of us who read the forum:
*** The Wacom that is one step down, the 22HD Touch, produces 16.7 million colors, the same as the top of the line Apple Thunderbolt monitor. That is 16.7 million colors versus over 1 billion. And the 22HD produces "only" 72% of Adobe RGB. That is 72% versus 97%. (Apple does not publish the Adobe RGB spec for the Thunderbolt monitor, at least not that I could find.)
(1) But what do these statistics actually mean? For advanced amateurs, would we actually see a difference between 16.7 million colors versus 1 billion, and between 72% RGB coverage (the Wacom that costs "only" $2500) versus 97% coverage of Adobe RGB (the same level of coverage for the NEC or the Wacom 24HD)?
(2) And if there is a difference that can be actually seen, how does it manifest itself? As banding? How?
Assuming, of course, that we are using computers that can even reproduce this range of colors, which according to Wacom, can't be done on an external high end montor connected to an iMac -- either due to its internal video card, or its use of the mini displayport, or both. Your answer above should clarify which is the issue.
(3) And which of those can't be reproduced on an external monitor connected to an iMac -- the 1 billion colors or the 97% of RGB -- or both?
(4) And does either of these limitations affect the screen built into an iMac that was built in the 2011 (not retina) to 2013 timeframe? Can owners of iMacs see 97% of RGB on their own screens, let alone 1 billion colors?
Does it really matter, for advanced amateurs?
Rodney, many thanks in advance for your response.
-
Another fly in the ointment is sharpening for web output.
The images may look beautiful on your screen at home, but they are going to look very different on everyone elses lower resolution monitor. I already notice the difference in the amount of sharpening needed on my Dell U2711 screen vs my 24", and the pixel density difference there is not nearly as dramatic.
While this may or may not be a problem with current software, I don't think that this can be a fundamental issue with high-resolution monitors? I mean, if you need to simulate a low-res monitor, this can be done reasonably accurately cheaply in software by forcing 2x2 pixels to have the same value. Thus, a perfect 4k monitor paired with optimal software can do whatever a perfect 2k monitor can, and then some.
For the common case that our monitors color gamut is (nearly) a superset of our prints, we have softproofing that tries to emulate the print output on-screen. If/when our monitors are ever capable of resolving more spatial information than our prints, perhaps we will have include spatial characteristics in the "softproof" functionality as well. Emulating a CMYK dithered pattern may put a lot of stress on the monitor resolution (and be hard to profile), but a coarse emulation of the luminance MTF might be considered helpful.
-h
-
So that is my question. When Wacom said that an iMac can't deliver on the full potential of its new 24HD display, is it referring to the video cards and processing in the iMac, or is it referring to the method of connection -- the minidisplay or thunderbolt port?
Afraid I don't know what they are referring to. I suppose the iMac's graphic card, whatever that may be in all models, can't drive it? Don't know. There should be no limitation with the NEC's, I'm driving one off a Macbook Pro and have done so with older Macbooks.
As to the billon's of colors, that's mostly marketing speak so don't let it impress you too much. On paper, a 10-bit, 12-bit, 14-bit encoding can create a number of colors, not that we could see anything like that number of colors. It is useful to have more bits, to a degree. And are all the bits being used throughout the entire chain?
The percentage of some color space (depending on the calculations if you want to get anal) is telling you is how wide a gamut that display it is compared to (usually sRGB). A bit more useful, especially if you are working with raw data and your output is to a wider gamut device like modern Ink Jet's. There's the gamut of the display and the number of bits one can use to divide the numbers up.
-
As to the billon's of colors, that's mostly marketing speak so don't let it impress you too much. On paper, a 10-bit, 12-bit, 14-bit encoding can create a number of colors, not that we could see anything like that number of colors. It is useful to have more bits, to a degree. And are all the bits being used throughout the entire chain?
And are the image processing steps along the chain using "proper" dithering (whatever that is for images), or is it only throwing away the lsbs after e.g. multiplications?
-h
-
Thanks very much for the observations, and kind comments. It is good to know that I did identify a legitimate issue that Apple and Adobe, among others, need to address in the next few years.
Ha! 😊
Apple and Adobe started addressing GPU acceleration years ago, not "in the next few years". ;)
Truth is that a proper GPU acceleration support is already a reality since Lion and even more Mountain Lion. However, writing cross-platform softwares with good GPU acceleration is not easy at all, that's one of the reasons why Photoshop and Premiere are GPU accelerated while Lightroom is not (yet). Lightroom is written radically different from the two other big brothers.
So everything is ready. A more mature Cocoa API support could simplify or even automatize both thread splitting and GPU acceleration without changing the code that much. -That- could be a step for the next few years, and it wouldn't involve Adobe. Other than that, almost everything is already on the table.
Recent Anandtech Mac Pro review highlighted a spotty 4K resolution support, especially when an unsupported 4K display is plugged, but it's very much due the lack of a real standardization on the "4K" term, which is not a resolution. At best it's a family of resolutions. :-\ Most probably the next OS X upgrades will broaden the support for more 4K panels.
Paolo
PS: there's no need to glorify Rodney (who indeed is a respected professional) to emphasize an personal attack towards me. That's all pretty much puerile. As soon as someone doesn't report wrong facts (you did, I didn't yet), there's no need to be known worldwide in order to raise a hand and just speak. My mantra is that on forums, before judging, you really should know what are you talking about. On this topic I do, without ever having proclaimed me anything. Do you? ::)
-
My compliments to Rodney were entirely sincere, and if anything overdue. I purchased the Sony Artisan because of his recommendation, and my last purchase of an NEC monitor was also heavily guided by his recommendations. I'm sure that Rodney is pleased to know that his contributions to the forum are very useful for amateurs like myself who are guided by his recommendations.
I also have never claimed to have any level of expertise. The first paragraph my opening post in this thread made that quite clear, in which I requested clarification on any misstatements I might have made.
Mac Paolo:
Clearly you do possess expertise in these areas. As you have repeatedly stated and proclaimed in this thread. :-) It would, however, be easier to engage in a dialogue on these issues with you if the personal attacks could be left out.
With that being said thanks very much for referring us to the Anandtech review of the Mac Pro:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013
For anyone interested in the issues discussed in this thread, you should also look at this review as well:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis
The section of the Mac Pro review on retina displays also includes an excellent explanation of how retina displays operate, and how they retain sharp and crisp text while changing resolutions. In that regard, I now better understand your earlier comments in that regard, specifically on how the Apple retina can use high resolutions, that normally result in very small text, while then rescaling the text to make it readable. The review of the retina screen on the MacBook Pro also discusses the same issue.
I'll readily acknowledge that my earlier comments on how monitors look blurry when they change resolutions applied to non-Apple retina displays. I own a 15 inch MacBook Pro with retina display, and agree that its behavior is quite different from a standard display–or the display on my 27 inch iMac which is a non-retina display. I now better understand and appreciate your earlier comments in that regard.
(In addition to the improvements that Apple has already made on how it can change resolutions on a retina display, while retaining sharp text, I believe it would also be helpful if they would include a feature to increase the size of resolutions on a systemwide basis. Together, that would be an unbeatable combination.)
As you note, the above review explains that these technical innovations were not included in how Apple implemented its support for 4K displays. The review sums it up by saying that "the result is a bit of a blurry mess." My conclusion is that we should all wait until Apple releases its own proprietary 4k display, and incorporates these type of features in the Apple support for its own display.
If you could also comment on the questions I posed concerning the statements made by Wacom, it would be very helpful. (See my above posting, which I admit was a bit too long) As I reported, Wacom tech support flatly stated that the full *video* abilities of their 24 HD touch display could not be utilized on an iMac. (The video abilities, and not anything related to the touchpad.) I am still curious as to why that is the case.
Is it due to the video card within an iMac? Or is it due to a limitation of the thunderport mini displayport connection that prevents it from fully utilizing all of the video information from the full-sized displayport output on the wacom?
(Recall that Wacom tech-support said that to fully utilize the video abilities of the 24 HD Touch display, the displayport output must be utilized, and not the DVI output. At the same time, Wacom recommended using a DVI to mini displayport adapter with an iMac, rather than a displayport to mini displayport adapter. That recommendation is counter–intuitive, since Watcom says that you must use the displayport output on their monitor to fully utilize its video capabilities, while they turn around and recommend using a DVI adapter on an iMac. That results in a confusing set of statements and recommendations, further confusing what the actual problem is and why an iMac can't reproduce the full video capabilities of the top-of-the-line Wacom.)
Does the Mac Pro address these issues? If it does, does it address these issues through the more advanced video cards, or does it address these issues due to the new thunderport 2 connection that is discussed in the Mac Pro review?
Again, I appreciate your comments and for referring us to the Mac Pro review. It helped explain many issues discussed in this thread. And helped me to better understand your earlier comments.
I would appreciate any additional explanation and clarification you can provide– as well as any correction of any misstatements I may have made :-)
-
Alan,
Here is a link explaining the capabilities of the different video connections (if that helps).
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57614748-221/hdmi-vs-displayport-vs-dvi-vs-vga-which-connection-to-choose/ (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57614748-221/hdmi-vs-displayport-vs-dvi-vs-vga-which-connection-to-choose/)
The Wacom Cintiq 24HD touch has a maximum resolution of 1920 x 1200. That resolution is supported by HDMI, DVI and Display port. Anything above that resolution would require a dual link mini display port to DVI adapter, HDMI or Display port.
I run a Wacom Cintiq 20WSX and a 24" HP2480ZX Dreamcolor monitor from the ATI 5700 video card in my old 2006 MacPro.The card has both a DVI connector and two mini display ports. The Cintiq is hooked directly to the cards DVI port and its max resolution is 1680 x 1050 @67 Hz The Dreamcolor monitor is connected with a standard Mac mini display port to DVI adapter and runs 1920 x 1200 @60 Hz.
-
That unit produces 1.07 billion colors and 97% of Adobe RGB. (*** See footnote below.) Unless I misunderstood him, Wacom tech support said that to fully deliver this range of color and RGB coverage, the full sized displayport cable and output must be used -- and not DVI, which is also included.
To get 1 billion colours you would have to be using a 10bit per channel video outlet, not the standard 8bit. Support for this isn't great at the moment and only the AMD FirePro video cards (I don't think the Nvidia Quadro cards do) support it at the moment (via DisplayPort). No graphics card that isn't in the workstation class supports 10bit video output.
The only Apple computers with such video cards are the new Mac Pros so only they could possibly run the Wacom in this way. The issue is the video hardware, not DisplayPort vs mini DiplayPort which is just a different connector size.
-
To get 1 billion colours you would have to be using a 10bit per channel video outlet, not the standard 8bit. Support for this isn't great at the moment and only the AMD FirePro video cards (I don't think the Nvidia Quadro cards do) support it at the moment (via DisplayPort). No graphics card that isn't in the workstation class supports 10bit video output.
The only Apple computers with such video cards are the new Mac Pros so only they could possibly run the Wacom in this way. The issue is the video hardware, not DisplayPort vs mini DiplayPort which is just a different connector size.
I did miss that point but the limitation on 10 bit output is not limited to the video hardware, it must also be supported by the operating system and Mac operating system has not historically supported 10 bit video output. There are rumors that OSX 10.9 does support 10 bit output but I have yet to see any confirmation from Apple.
-
Many thanks for mlewis and Jerry for responding to my questions. So, even if the Mac Pro has the necessary video cards, the Mac OS doesn't support the advertised one billion colors at the present time? Shame on Wacom, as they advertise and push this very heavily, without any caveats on their web site as to what is required to utilize the monitor at that level. I have seen other postings, in other forums, with questions from potential Wacom customers, who ask about what they are losing if they buy the monitor that is one step down (22HD) with the same color support as the Apple Thunderbolt display. The question is not what they are losing, but whether they can even utilize the full abilities of the 24HD Touch. You can't lose something that you don't have in the first place -- as almost all of these potential customers would be using 8 bit video cards, based on the explanation from mlewis. But I suppose most advanced amateurs who buy it plug it in through DVI, with current video cards, and assume they are magically looking at 1 billion colors -- when they are not. Nothing in the manual speaks to any of these issues, so no one would be the wiser or have any idea as to whether they are looking at 1 billion colors -- or not.
One question is whether, if we compared an Apple or NEC monitor running at 8 bits and 16.7 million colors, with a Wacom running at 10 bits and one billion colors -- could we tell the difference?
-
One question is whether, if we compared an Apple or NEC monitor running at 8 bits and 16.7 million colors, with a Wacom running at 10 bits and one billion colors -- could we tell the difference?
Only on some mean gradients, here's a NEC 10bit test with example objects where the difference is quite obvious:
http://www.necdisplay.com/documents/Software/NEC_10_bit_video_Windows_demo.zip
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/NEC%2010%20bit%20demo%20instructions.jpg)
-
According to Poynton, 460 nonlineary distributed steps (9 bits) is sufficient to encode a 100:1 contrast image without banding, or 9900 lineary distributed steps (14 bits). The 8 bits used in common gamma-encoded formats (BT709) is sufficient for 50:1 contrast. How many bits are our cameras effectively able to record? I do understand that people may want to edit their raw files heavily, and that color management in your computer may put a stress on (any) quantization between computer and display (especially one that is not dithered), but is this really a problem, aside from possibly synthetic benchmarks?
http://www.poynton.com/PDFs/GammaFAQ.pdf (Ch. 13)