Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Should your next monitor be a UHDTV?  (Read 1274 times)

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1715
Should your next monitor be a UHDTV?
« on: January 09, 2016, 02:40:27 am »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ces/12084520/What-is-Ultra-HD-Premium-and-why-are-all-TV-makers-betting-on-it.html

https://www.avforums.com/article/what-is-hdr.11039

Summary: 4K TVs that will do UHDTV are now being built to also do 10bit video whereas computer monitors are predominantly 8bit.
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: Should your next monitor be a UHDTV?
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2016, 09:13:08 am »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ces/12084520/What-is-Ultra-HD-Premium-and-why-are-all-TV-makers-betting-on-it.html

https://www.avforums.com/article/what-is-hdr.11039

Summary: 4K TVs that will do UHDTV are now being built to also do 10bit video whereas computer monitors are predominantly 8bit.

Thanks for posting these links. The articles are primarily aimed at video rather than photo editing with color management, and the latter is what most of us photo enthusiasts are interested in. The requirements are somewhat different.

Certainly, a wider color gamut than sRGB or aRGB would be highly desirable. Rec 2020 is at the upper end of proposed gamuts and covers 78.5% of the CIE 1931 color space as compared to 52.1% and 35.9% for Adobe RGB and REC 709 (essentially sRGB). A bit depth of 10 or 12 bits would also be welcome.

Increased DR would be nice, but current editing monitors have more DR than can be shown in prints, which is the main endpoint for most of us. The increased luminance of 1000-4000 nits (candela per meter squared) is far in excess of the 120-140 nits recommended for photo editing for prints (see Why Are My Prints too Dark).

Proper calibration is critical for photo editing, but less so for watching movies.

Bill 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up