Getting max resolution with NEC PA302W on new Mac Pro

[AlterEgo]

They are more than equal to support the fact that the two device values are the same perceived color. Color is a perceptual attribute of humans in this discussion.
You're getting caught up in a debate about precision that's totally unnecessary!
It's like suggesting that using a $25 ruler which isn't as accurate as something NASA uses (which is accurate within 10000th of an inch) to measure window shades is therefore, an invalid measurement for ordering window shades. That's ridiculous.

see example above (added after your reply) how different Lab numbers presented with 8bit integer precision (rounded) Lab values do represent visually different numbers... it is simply incorrect to illustrate anything with 8bit precision (ditto about ACR Lab readouts)... better than nothing of course.

[digitaldog]

why ? with certain colors my vision can do low first digits = dE2k 0.x for sure... something like de2K = 0.0x I am not sure, never tried

http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Delta_E:_The_Color_Difference
The idea is that a dE of 1.0 is the smallest color difference the human eye can see. So any dE less than 1.0 is imperceptible (as in turn the lights off and head to the pub) and it stands to reason that any dE greater than 1.0 is noticeable (as in put the coffee on, we're going to be here a while). Unfortunately - and probably not surprisingly - it's not that simple. Some color differences greater than 1 are perfectly acceptable, maybe even unnoticeable. Also, the same dE color difference between two yellows and two blues may not look like the same difference to the eye and there are other places where it can fall down.

http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Delta_E
Unit of measure that calculates and quantifies the difference between two colors -- one a reference color, the other a sample color that attempts to match it -- based on L*a*b* coordinates (AR: no mention of the need for more than 8-bits precision). A Delta E of 1 or less between two colors that are not touching one another is barely perceptible by the average human observer; a Delta E between 3 and 6 is typically considered an acceptable match in commercial reproduction on printing presses. (Note: Human vision is more sensitive to color differences if two colors actually touch each other.)[/size]


Find a resource or color scientist that would suggest the same Lab values, even without the precision of the decimals are two different visible and perceivable colors!

[AlterEgo]

the issue is that 2 different lab numbers rounded to be displayed as 8 bit integers can designate 2 visibly different colors (and with sufficiently big dE-whatever)... that's it... your example/illustration claimed that 2 lab numbers were the same as their presentations in your screenshot as 8bit integers (or rather rounded to integer numbers as L is up to 100 and a/b can be +/-) are the same (QUOTE from you =  "have the same Lab values", while they have different values - just displayed as the same because they were rounded for the display purposes with limited precision) - this is not correct... this is not about how many colors people can see... let us not replace the issue.

[digitaldog]

the issue is that 2 different lab numbers rounded to be displayed as 8 bit integers can designate 2 visibly different colors (and with sufficiently big dE-whatever)... that's it...

Example please.

[AlterEgo]

Example please.

see several posts above in this thread, I used BabelColor CT&A

99.5/0.49/0.49 vs 99.5/-0.49/-0.49

if you round them then you round them for presentation as pure integers to 100,0,0 - right ?

if you will argue the L* =  99.5 (100) is a bad example, OK - replace with L* = 50, same a/b pairs... still can see the difference...

[digitaldog]

see several posts above in this thread, I used BabelColor CT&A
99.5/0.49/0.49 vs 99.5/-0.49/-0.49
if you round them then you round them for presentation as pure integers to 100,0,0 - right ?
if you will argue the L* =  99.5 (100) is a bad example, OK - replace with L* = 50, same a/b pairs... still can see the difference...

Sufficiently big dE-whatever? Still less than a dE of 1 using dE 2000.  So I'm confused as what you're telling us (me). Two device values, one color:

[AlterEgo]

Still less than a dE of 1 using dE 2000. So I'm confused as what you're telling us (me). Two device values, one color:

nope - two colors... and note -0.49,-0.49 vs 0.49, 0.49... if I am not mistaken your screenshot shows +0.49,-0.49 vs 0.49, 0.49...

[digitaldog]

if I am not mistaken your screenshot shows +0.49,-0.49 vs 0.49, 0.49...

You're correct, my bad (and ignore RGB, I just typed your Lab values, incorrectly into the sRGB color list).
So now I see a whopping 1.7 dE:
But you are correct, at that value, using dE 2000 and 1.0 as the granularity of perception, it could be noticed.
The sRGB examples I provided, no, those two device values are one color.
Sufficiently big dE-whatever?

[digitaldog]

And then we have Lightroom and how it scales Lab values with decimals compared to PS.

[AlterEgo]

peace then

[AlterEgo]

And then we have Lightroom

does LR show Lab with .1 precision (right or wrong) ? I am using ACR where only rounded integers, not LR so I do not know myself, hence the question

[digitaldog]

does LR show Lab with .1 precision (right or wrong) ? I am using ACR where only rounded integers, not LR so I do not know myself, hence the question

Yes, it appears to.
So here's the single pixel sRGB image showing Lab values from Photoshop and LR:

[David Eichler]

And in reality, like all such spec's, even those that suggest 24-bit color produces 16.7 million colors, it's not so. Those are device values, not colors. We humans can't see 16.7 million colors. We can encode and define 16.7 million device values.

Sure. However, a device that can display 1.07 billion "colors" might be able to display more colors that we can actually see than one that can display a maximum of 16.8 million colors (depending upon the image itself of course). No?

[digitaldog]

Sure. However, a device that can display 1.07 billion "colors" might be able to display more colors that we can actually see than one that can display a maximum of 16.8 million colors (depending upon the image itself of course). No?

If we can't see it, it's not a color. At least the color experts and color scientists seem to agree on that:



Fairchild's "Color Appearance Models". Page 1!
Like beauty, color is in the eye of the beholder. For as long as human scientific inquiry has been recorded, the nature of color perception has been a topic of great interest. Despite tremendous evolution of technology,fundamental issues of color perception remain unanswered. Many scientific attempts to explain color rely purely on the physical nature of light and objects. However, without the human observer, there is no color.


Further on the same page:
It is common to say that certain wavelengths of light, or certain objects are a give color. This is an attempt to relegate color to the purely physical domain. It is more correct to state those stimuli are perceived to be a certain color when viewed under specific conditions.


Page 1 paragraph 2 of Digital Color Management by Giorgianni and Madden:
But color itself is a perception and perceptions only exist in the mind.


Page 11 of The GATF Practical guide to color management:
Although extensive research has been conducted, we still not completely understand what happens in the brain when we "see" color. The visual sensation known as color occurs when light excites photoreceptors in the eye called cone cells.


Page 75 of Understanding color management by Sharma:
Color is an impression that we form in our brains.

[David Eichler]

If we can't see it, it's not a color.

Which is why I put the work color in quotes initially in my comment. However, some of those 16 million or 1 billion "colors" that the device can display are colors which we can actually see. No?

[digitaldog]

Which is why I put the work color in quotes initially in my comment. However, some of those 16 million or 1 billion "colors" that the device can display are colors which we can actually see. No?

The device values we can see are colors. The device values we can't see are not colors, they are device values.
Take a 24-bit color file who's encoding could produce 16.7 million device values but not necessarily colors. Convert to 16-bit. More colors no. More device values, yes.

[David Eichler]

The device values we can see are colors. The device values we can't see are not colors, they are device values.
Take a 24-bit color file who's encoding could produce 16.7 million device values but not necessarily colors. Convert to 16-bit. More colors no. More device values, yes.

It is like the question about a tree falling in the woods and no one around to hear it. Is it a sound? Some would say it is not. Others would say yes, because it creates waves in the air that can be measured with technology. You seem to be trying to argue that the specification in question is not really relevant or even accurate. Is that what you mean to say, that a device being able to display, say, 16.7 million measurable "things" does not tell us anything about its ability to display a particular color gamut?

[digitaldog]

It is like the question about a tree falling in the woods and no one around to hear it. Is it a sound? Some would say it is not. Others would say yes, because it creates waves in the air that can be measured with technology.

I'm arguing FOR what the color scientists below have written! If you can't see a device value, it's not a color. I'm stating this because consumers look at spec's and don't understand what the spec is stating. They believe that if Display A's spec suggest it can produce a billion colors (no quotes on purpose) it can't be as good as one that produces trillions of colors. They don't understand we can't see that difference. It's largely marketing hype. And this isn't to point a finger at NEC! Nearly everyone does this.

You seem to be trying to argue that the specification in question is not really relevant or even accurate. Is that what you mean to say, that a device being able to display, say, 16.7 million measurable "things" does not tell us anything about its ability to display a particular color gamut?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And further, color gamut has nothing to do with numbers of colors! Gamut is the range, not number of colors.

[David Eichler]

I'm arguing FOR what the color scientists below have written! If you can't see a device value, it's not a color. I'm stating this because consumers look at spec's and don't understand what the spec is stating. They believe that if Display A's spec suggest it can produce a billion colors (no quotes on purpose) it can't be as good as one that produces trillions of colors. They don't understand we can't see that difference. It's largely marketing hype. And this isn't to point a finger at NEC! Nearly everyone does this.  Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And further, color gamut has nothing to do with numbers of colors! Gamut is the range, not number of colors.

Thanks.