Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: hubell on April 07, 2022, 02:41:42 pm
-
My NEC PA322UHD 4k 31" monitor needs to be replaced. I would be interested to hear from anyone who uses (or considered using) the Apple XDR Pro Display for editing photographs for print. Putting aside the price, how would it compare with the Eizo CG 319X and the NEC PA311D, two 4k 30" monitors? I have not found any reviews online that address this issue in a thoughtful way. From what I have read, while it is not easy to calibrate and profile the XDR monitor, Apple claims that it does not need to be calibrated. Apple claims it is "perfectly" calibrated from the factory, and stays that way. It also appears to be possible to set the color space, the brightness, and the white point so that the monitor is properly configured for a soft proofing and printing workflow.
Thanks.
-
Putting aside the price, how would it compare with the Eizo CG 319X and the NEC PA311D, two 4k 30" monitors?
It's not a "smart" display system where calibration takes place in the panel, you can build as many calibration targets as you wish and load them on the fly for soft proofing. So there's that. ;)
It may be 'perfectly' calibrated at the factory to say DCI-P3 or anything else, but is that the calibration you need or want? If not, it's far from 'perfect'.
Plus, how long does the display remain 'perfectly' calibrated?
-
It's not a "smart" display system where calibration takes place in the panel, you can build as many calibration targets as you wish and load them on the fly for soft proofing. So there's that. ;)
It may be 'perfectly' calibrated at the factory to say DCI-P3 or anything else, but is that the calibration you need or want? If not, it's far from 'perfect'.
Plus, how long does the display remain 'perfectly' calibrated?
I think I could build a custom preset similar to the one I use for my NEC monitor that would be based upon the full color gamut of the display, P65 white point, 2.2 gamma curve, and a brightness of 120. So, the "perfect calibration" of the Apple XDR monitor would not permit those settings to be accurately set and included in a monitor profile?
I gather from your comments that you are not a big fan of the XDR display for the use case I described.
Thanks for your input, as always.
-
diglloyd did not like it... something about the image changing with the angle of view
he likes best his 1600x2560 nec...also my prevered size, but not made anymore.
-
diglloyd did not like it... something about the image changing with the angle of view
he likes best his 1600x2560 nec...also my prevered size, but not made anymore.
He doesn't like anything, but his principal issue seemed to be that the color balance was inconsistent for off axis viewing.
-
I think I could build a custom preset similar to the one I use for my NEC monitor that would be based upon the full color gamut of the display, P65 white point, 2.2 gamma curve, and a brightness of 120. So, the "perfect calibration" of the Apple XDR monitor would not permit those settings to be accurately set and included in a monitor profile?
I don't understand what you propose.
With a Smart Display system, the calibration takes place in the panel hardware whereby, you ask for a calibration target you've made (and it needs to be up to date), and that is then conducted in the panel while the associated ICC profile is loaded. You see this update in SpectraView as you toggle from preset to preset.
You could recalibrate using another product for the Apple display and build a new profile every time; kind of a drag.
-
I don't understand what you propose.
With a Smart Display system, the calibration takes place in the panel hardware whereby, you ask for a calibration target you've made (and it needs to be up to date), and that is then conducted in the panel while the associated ICC profile is loaded. You see this update in SpectraView as you toggle from preset to preset.
You could recalibrate using another product for the Apple display and build a new profile every time; kind of a drag.
I don't understand what you mean by "Smart Display". Are you taking about software which changes the display output to match the target values you choose based on a previous calibration made either at the factory or by the user? NEC, Eizo, and Apple all have software and firmware, in specific display models, to calculate and control transformations to different target values based on a previously made calibration.
I don't understand what you mean by "calibration takes place in the panel hardware". I understand calibration taking place when you measure light emitted thru the panel hardware to your eye or a measuring device.
I don't understand what you mean by "a calibration target you've made (and it needs to be up to date)". Isn't "a calibration target" just an aim point? I understand why a calibration needs to be needs to be up-to-date, but how would a target change over time?
There's much that I don't understand... but I'm willing to learn.
-
I don't understand what you mean by "Smart Display".
Sorry, certainly not an industry-wide, accepted term but one that's been around since at least the Sony Artisan days.
Display electronics and software that allows one to produce multiple calibration targets (and yes, you do need to use an instrument ideally to get them), whereby you can load all this into the panel on the fly and swap the appropriate ICC profile, done high bit (Hardware calibration LUT).
One could produce settings A and settings B for say i1Profiler. One could toggle between the two by conducting either (in this case 12 minutes) process to calibrate and produce a profile for each. With the "Smart Display" this is done on the fly, in seconds.
Best described in the SpectraView manual and the part about Multiple Calibration sets is part of the 'smarts":
The SpectraView system uses a color sensor to take color measurements of the display screen during calibration. The software analyzes these measurements and sends color adjustment commands directly to the display monitor. This means that color adjustments are made in the monitor rather than in the video graphics adapter, resulting in full use of the number of colors available on the graphics adapter and a much brighter image with the maximum possible color gamut. With SpectraView, the video graphics adapter is not used at all to make any gamma or Tone Response Curve corrections to the display, so the full color resolution and fidelity of the system is maintained.
Main Features and benefits
SpectraView provides the following features and benefits:
• Automatic calibration - SpectraView communicates with the display monitors using Display Data Channel - Command Interface (DDC/CI) which is a two-way communications link between the video
graphics adapter and display monitor using the normal video signal cable. No extra cables are necessary. All adjustments to the monitor settings are done automatically using this communications link. A USB connection between the host PC and display can also be used on MultiSync PA Series models only. It is not necessary to manually configure the monitor as all of the necessary settings are made by the software.
• High bit depth internal Look Up Tables (LUTs) - each LCD display monitor supported by SpectraView II features three internal 10, 12 or 14 bit LUTs (depending on the model). These tables allow very precise adjustments to be made to the display’s Tone Response Curve without reducing the number of displayable colors or introducing color banding artifacts.
• Multiple Calibration Sets - Different display monitor calibrations can be instantly loaded allowing quick and easy switching between different calibration settings without the need to re-calibrate the display. Each time a calibration set is loaded, the necessary monitor settings and ICC/ColorSync profiles are automatically updated.
With respect to your question about targets:
About Targets
SpectraView can also create custom Targets, which can then be exchanged with other SpectraView display users, providing identical calibrated displays.
A Target consists of up to five specifications that describe the color characteristics of the display:
• Gamma or Tone Response Curve (TRC) • White Point
• Intensity
• Contrast Ratio
• Color Gamut
The target can be one you create and share or a preset target supplied in the software. Click on one, boom, it is loaded and used and the associated profile is then 'found' and loaded into the system for ICC aware applications. And yes, calibration with an instrument must be conducted to do this.
And yes, many displays claim DDC but it's often very wonky (non technical term for, it often doesn't work well or at all). It does work fully with this kind of display system.
-
It may have been Karl Lang who came up with the "Smart Display/Monitor" term; I'll have to ask him. Knowing Karl well, he'll likely say yes even if we've both forgotten. ;D
I suppose inventing ColorMatch RGB was just the start with this <g>.
Anyway, two other authors (Fraser and Martin) use the term which I found in both of their books and sucked this off the Google machine:
-
The good old days of CRT monitors. I owned LaCie electronblue (https://www.lacie.com/lacie-content/datasheet/blueIV_en.pdf) monitors and the Sony Artisan (https://www.macworld.com/article/152043/sonyartisan.html) was my last CRT—thanks Karl for a wonderful display! In a corporate environment, we had one Barco Reference Calibrator V monitor, but it wasn't assigned to me and I rarely got a chance to drive it.
Barco, unfortunately, withdrew from the graphics display market; but they go head to head with Eizo competing in the high end medical diagnostic monitor market.
-
Sorry, certainly not an industry-wide, accepted term...
Thanks, got it. Just wanted to know what you meant by these terms.
NEC, Eizo, and Apple all have software and firmware, in specific display models, to calculate and control transformations to different target values based on a previously made calibration. The NEC PA311D, Eizo CG319X, or Apple Pro Display XDR, for example, can all do this out of the box using the factory calibration as the reference.
Apple refers to this as a "display reference mode (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210435)" or "custom refernce mode (https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/create-custom-reference-modes-mchl50ecf3c4/mac)". Eizo uses ColorNavigator's (https://www.eizoglobal.com/products/coloredge/cn7/) "color mode" panel selections. NEC uses their "SpectraView Engine" and MultiProfiler's (https://www.sharpnecdisplays.us/support-and-services/multiprofiler/17) "picture mode" panel selections. These "modes" may be either factory presets or customized by the user.
The interfaces and features vary, but the underlying concept is the same. Rather than repeatedly measuring to calibrate each set of targeted values to create different user selectable "modes", one reference calibration (either factory or user measured) is used by software and firmware which calculates and controls the neccessary adjustments to the electronics in the display for all of the user selectable preset or custom color modes.
The NEC and Eizo are definitely designed to be much easier for the user to supply the measured calibration used for reference. Apple's calibration software (https://support.apple.com/kb/DL2058?locale=en_US) requires one of a handful of expensive spectroradiometers for measurement.
-
Had a Barco V as well, fortunately, I didn't have to pay for it. ;) The 25 (?) quadrant purity adjustment at the time, was super cool.
But prior to that, both a Radius Press View 17 and later 21, again thanks to Karl.
-
He doesn't like anything, but his principal issue seemed to be that the color balance was inconsistent for off axis viewing.
I gave up on reading "diglloyd" long ago due to his habit of jumping to conclusions based on scant information or investigation. Sometimes he was correct in the conclusions he jumped to and other times... not so much.
This detailed review of the Apple XDR Pro Display, from a professional calibrator in the U.K, provides display measurements and performance. The reviewer measures and shows the off-axis viewing changes and discusses other uniformity issues. Some of the issues he discusses are simply the nature of using full-array local dimming (https://www.hellotech.com/blog/what-is-full-array-local-dimming-tv) technology to display HDR content rather than say OLED or dual-layer LCD technology which controls pixel brightness individually, rather than as groups or zones, to achieve the deep black needed for HDR.
https://www.youtube.com/Apple Pro Display XDR Review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtd7UzLJHrU)
Off-axis viewing issues are also discussed in this review...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21161487/apple-mac-pro-display-xdr-review-6k-lcd-screen-price-features (https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21161487/apple-mac-pro-display-xdr-review-6k-lcd-screen-price-features)
-
So, let me circle back to my question. When I have calibrated/profiled my NEC PA322UHD monitor, the only settings I have selected in the Spectraview software as my "Target Settings" are (1) "Photo Editing Target", (2) WP of D65, (3) Gamma of 2.2, (4) Intensity of 120, Contrast Ratio of Monitor Default (which is the maximum contrast ratio of the monitor) and (5) Color Gamut of Native. Is it possible to create a "custom reference mode" for an Apple XDR display that will "use" these same (or similar) settings so that the monitor can be used effectively for evaluating photo edits and producing as accurate a screen to print match as I get with the NEC monitor?
-
So, let me circle back to my question. When I have calibrated/profiled my NEC PA322UHD monitor, the only settings I have selected in the Spectraview software as my "Target Settings" are (1) "Photo Editing Target", (2) WP of D65, (3) Gamma of 2.2, (4) Intensity of 120, Contrast Ratio of Monitor Default (which is the maximum contrast ratio of the monitor) and (5) Color Gamut of Native. Is it possible to create a "custom reference mode" for an Apple XDR display that will "use" these same (or similar) settings so that the monitor can be used effectively for evaluating photo edits...
Kinda sort of... 1) You can name a custom reference mode. 2) You can select D65 as your white point (or DCI, D50 , or "Custom: Use the x and y fields to specify a custom white point." 3) Under "SDR (Standard Dynamic Range) Transfer Function" › "Pure Power", you can "Enter an exponent to define a pure power gamma function" of 2.2. 4) Under "Fine Tune Calibration (https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/fine-tune-the-calibration-of-your-display-mchlee9c1884/12.0/mac/12.0)", you can enter a target luminance value and measured luminance value into boxes along with target and measured white point x/y values. Frankly, I'm not sure if you have to fill-in all of the boxes or whether you can partially fill-in the data. Its shown in this link (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213072) for the Studio Display. User friendly it's not! 4—continued) Regarding your question about contrast ratio settings, I don't see where Apple offers the user any control over contrast ratio. 5) Again, I don't see any option for native color gamut to be set by the user. There are color gamut custom options of: P3, Rec.709/sRGB, EBU/PAL, and SMPTE-C/NTSC. I'm assuming that Apple considers the P3 setting native, but can't be sure.
You can create a "custom reference mode (https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/create-custom-reference-modes-mchl50ecf3c4/mac)", but Apple sets the options available to the user and some settings either don't exist or are clearly not very user friendly to change.
...and producing as accurate a screen to print match as I get with the NEC monitor?
That's a great question, but I'm not sure anyone has an answer for it. The Pro Display XDR is clearly targeted toward video editing and HDR content viewing. It doesn't have the Adobe RGB gamut coverage of either the NEC or Eizo monitors that you've mentioned, but should come reasonably close. Like most Apple products, it's really designed for them to be the ones primarily in control of the driving and for you to enjoy the ride.
-
There seems to be a broad consensus that a monitor that can display 100% of the Adobe RGB color space is the best choice for photographers who print. However, from what I read about the differences in the Adobe RGB and the Apple P-3 color spaces, these color spaces are very similar in their gamuts, but the Adobe RGB color space is a bit broader in the area of greens and blues, while the P-3 color space is a bit broader than Adobe RGG in the area of reds and yellows. These differences seem to me to be at the margins of the kinds of colors that I would care about as a landscape photographer and, in fact, if I had a choice between a broader selection of greens/blues or reds/yellows, I would opt for the latter. Is this is the right way to think about this, I would think that the Apple XDR Pro display's use of use of the P-3 color space in its reference modes would not be much of a detriment compared to an Eizo or NEC that can show 100% of the Adobe RGB color space.
Is this not the right way to think about Adobe RGB versus the Apple display P-3?
-
There seems to be a broad consensus that a monitor that can display 100% of the Adobe RGB color space is the best choice for photographers who print.
Only a broad consensus of the colorimetric uneducated. It not only isn't the best choice and has nothing to do with printing, but it was also a mistake in its creation (we can go there). Further, the difference between Adobe RGB (1998) and DCI-P3 isn't significant in size or gamut volume. They are different. So what?
All the RGB Working Spaces are based on theoretical emissive displays; some that kind of actually exist and some that don't and no direct relationship to any printed material. They are editing spaces.
Gamut volume of Adobe RGB (1998) is 1,207,390
Gamut volume of DCI-P3 is 1,324,470
The simple 2D gamut comparisons are shown below.
-
Only a broad consensus of the colorimetric uneducated. It not only isn't the best choice and has nothing to do with printing, but it was also a mistake in its creation (we can go there). Further, the difference between Adobe RGB (1998) and DCI-P3 isn't significant in size or gamut volume. They are different. So what?
All the RGB Working Spaces are based on theoretical emissive displays; some that kind of actually exist and some that don't and no direct relationship to any printed material. They are editing spaces.
Gamut volume of Adobe RGB (1998) is 1,207,390
Gamut volume of DCI-P3 is 1,324,470
The simple 2D gamut comparisons are shown below.
"Only a broad consensus of the colorimetric uneducated." So, what is the best choice for an editing space for a monitor (or, as Apple refers to it, a "reference mode") where the end product is a print from my inkjet printer, an Epson 9570? My photographs as I work on them in PS are 16 bit files tagged with Pro Photo RGB. Very common approach.
Thanks.
-
Here's an article that you may find helpful...
https://creativepro.com/how-do-p3-displays-affect-your-workflow (https://creativepro.com/how-do-p3-displays-affect-your-workflow/)
-
So, what is the best choice for an editing space for a monitor (or, as Apple refers to it, a "reference mode") where the end product is a print from my inkjet printer, an Epson 9570?
That's like asking "So what's the best choice of transparency film for a photographer"? Of course, it's Ektachrome. No, Velvia. No, Kodachrome. ;)
My photographs as I work on them in PS are 16 bit files tagged with Pro Photo RGB. Very common approach.
Good choice.
Common?
Apple can refer to it as a reference mode, it's a color space based on the aim of its creators, like sRGB, or ColorMatch RGB. The difference between it and Adobe RGB (1998) which didn't get created for an aim is the color gamut which again, isn't significant. And no one should expect to have the entire calibration aim points of a display match anything that doesn't work for them. My NEC may have a native calibrated gamut of Adobe RGB (1998) but it isn't producing Adobe RGB (1998) because of how I calibrate the display otherwise and for the goal, as best as possible, to match a print while soft proofing.
-
Another link to an article which you may find useful, this time with more photos for illustration and comparisons and fewer graphs.
http://www.astramael.com (http://www.astramael.com)
Something to keep in mind is that these working (editing) color spaces — like Apple Display-P3, Adobe RGB, sRGB, Rec. 709 — are all color spaces with defined gamuts which provide a common frame of reference. They are often used or referenced as standards within certain industries or among those working in creating content and producing output. They do not represent the native gamut of any particular device, however. A particular printer or monitor, for instance, will have its own color gamut which may lie within or extend outside of a working color space gamut or another device's color gamut
What Apple calls P3 (Display-P3) is an Apple creation that differs from the DCI-P3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCI-P3) which has been a standard color space for digital cinema production. Anyone can speculate as to why Apple created their own "P3" color space and I'll give my best guess (pure speculation). I suspect Apple sees (or at least dreams and imagines) the future of image content being predominantly viewed on Apple iPhone displays, iPad displays, or other Apple device displays and are trying to move content creators in that direction by making Apple Display-P3 the universal Apple device standard.
Apple sometimes refers to their altered version as simply "P3". I suspect that they want their altered Display-P3 version to be considered the de facto standard which creators use for editing and producing content rather than DCI-P3 or Adobe RGB. It's interesting that Apple simply ignores the fact that Adobe RGB even exists as a common working space in the photo and print world with their latest displays and selectable color modes.
-
Here's an article that you may find helpful...
https://creativepro.com/how-do-p3-displays-affect-your-workflow (https://creativepro.com/how-do-p3-displays-affect-your-workflow/)
Conrad's a good guy, but this isn't fully accurate:
Adobe RGB is generally more aligned with prepress color spaces. This isn’t surprising: Adobe RGB exists in part because Adobe wanted to have an RGB color space that included CMYK colors that fall outside of sRGB.
Adobe wanted to include SMPTE-240M in PS5, did so but screwed up some of the chromaticity values found on the web, SMPTE told them; you can't call it SMPTE-240M, it isn't that color space. They changed the name to Adobe RGB (1998) in PS 5.5. Yes, for prepress (and printing anything), the gamut is more aligned than sRGB would be. Adobe RGB (1998) exists in part because Adobe had to name a Working Space something they hadn't originally wanted. ;D
Some photo quality inkjet printers can reproduce colors that typical presses and sRGB displays cannot.
I wish he had added, there are colors defined in lowly sRGB that no printer can produce.
-
Conrad's a good guy, but this isn't fully accurate...
Who or what is? We all do our best, but accuracy is always a question of degree.
-
Who or what is? We all do our best, but accuracy is always a question of degree.
Indeed, which is why peer review is kind of useful.
"Mistakes are a great educator when one is honest enough to admit them and willing to learn from them". - Source Unknown
The facts are, that Adobe RGB (1998) wasn't a design or something Adobe wanted. It was a fix for a mistake. The mistake ended up not being problematic. But Adobe didn't want/design it as it exists.
-
...My NEC may have a native calibrated gamut of Adobe RGB (1998)...
Your NEC display certainly has a native device gamut which can be measured and calibrated; but Adobe RGB is not a device gamut, it's a working space. Then again... who really wants to split hairs that finely.
-
Your NEC display certainly has a native device gamut which can be measured and calibrated; but Adobe RGB is not a device gamut, it's a working space. Then again... who really wants to split hairs that finely.
No hairs to split here.
My NEC has the Adobe RGB (1998) color gamut. At least as I allow it to be so set through part of its calibration. That's exactly what I wrote.
I never said my NEC produces Adobe RGB (1998) because it doesn't by my doing. As I stated, my NEC doesn't produce Adobe RGB (1998) because it doesn't follow the Adobe RGB (1998) Working Space spec's by my doing; altering the WP, cd/m2, and contrast ratio.
There is a target for producing the color space, Adobe RGB (1998). I don't want that.
My NEC produces a color space I ask for: PA271Q 87100388TA.icc
FWIW, the RGB Working Space is called "Adobe RGB (1998)" but then again... who really wants to split hairs that finely. ;D
-
No hairs to split here.
My NEC has the Adobe RGB (1998) color gamut. At least as I allow it to be so set through part of its calibration. That's exactly what I wrote.
My NEC may have a native calibrated gamut of Adobe RGB (1998)
Your display, like all displays, does have a native gamut which is the full range of colors which that particular device is capable of producing. Native gamut is unique to a device. The display can be measured and calibrated in its native state. The display can also be calibrated to emulate something other than its native gamut, by altering its native output capacity in some manner.
Once the full native gamut is measured and that data is made available to software and/or firmware, other working space color gamuts can be emulated by the display. A working color space (like Adobe RGB) which is emulated by a device (like a display) can be calibrated to determine how much of the space and how accurately it can be reproduced from the available native device gamut.
Something to keep in mind is that these working (editing) color spaces — like Apple Display-P3, Adobe RGB, sRGB, Rec. 709 — are all color spaces with defined gamuts which provide a common frame of reference. They are often used or referenced as standards within certain industries or among those working in creating content and producing output. They do not represent the native gamut of any particular device, however. A particular printer or monitor, for instance, will have its own color gamut which may lie within or extend outside of a working color space gamut or another device's color gamut.
Indeed, which is why peer review is kind of useful.
"Mistakes are a great educator when one is honest enough to admit them and willing to learn from them". - Source Unknown
I think that you're one of the people that taught me the difference between a device gamut and a working space gamut back in the digital wild west of the 90s. You gave me lots of other great information at those seminars and I've been grateful ever since. But that was a long time ago, my memory may be corrupted.
Anyway... nothing and no one is 100% accurate all the time. We all need a little recalibration once in awhile, especially me.
-
So, let me circle back to my question. When I have calibrated/profiled my NEC PA322UHD monitor, the only settings I have selected in the Spectraview software as my "Target Settings" are (1) "Photo Editing Target", (2) WP of D65, (3) Gamma of 2.2, (4) Intensity of 120, Contrast Ratio of Monitor Default (which is the maximum contrast ratio of the monitor) and (5) Color Gamut of Native. Is it possible to create a "custom reference mode" for an Apple XDR display that will "use" these same (or similar) settings so that the monitor can be used effectively for evaluating photo edits and producing as accurate a screen to print match as I get with the NEC monitor?
Here's a link to an Apple support document which better illustrates custom reference mode settings. It shows the custom reference interface for limiting the maximum luminance for HDR and SDR display modes. Earlier, I wasn't sure how the options they offered for setting luminance function and frankly, I'm not entirely clear how the display behaves below the maximum limit you can select. I still don't see a way to fix a specific luminance setting other than in the "fine tune calibrations" white point x/y and luminance entries I pointed to in my earlier reply.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/Use reference modes with your Apple display (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210435)
-
A device and Working Space gamut can be one in the same.
A device and Working Space can be one in the same. Not mutually exclusive.
A calibrated Radius Pressview display can produce ColorMatch RGB which is also a Working Space as one example.
-
My NEC may have a native calibrated gamut of Adobe RGB (1998) but it isn't producing Adobe RGB (1998) because of how I calibrate the display otherwise and for the goal, as best as possible, to match a print while soft proofing.
To split my own hairs :D , my PA has the following spec's:
Adobe RGB Coverage/Size:98.5% / 114.0%
NEC states 2 sets of figures for the display gamut: "Percent Area" and "Percent Coverage". The "Percent Area" is simply the area in CIE xy of the display gamut vs the reference gamut, with no consideration of how much of the gamuts actually overlap. This value can be greater than 100%.
The "Percent Coverage" is the overlapping area of the 2 gamuts expressed as a percent of the total area of the reference gamut. The maximum possible value for this is 100%.
-
This is a fascinating discussion, and I really appreciate the input from individuals who actually know what they are talking about. As takeaways, first, would I be wrong to conclude from it that, contrary to the conventional wisdom that is pervasive on the web, the use of the P3 Photography Reference Mode for the XDR Pro Display with the luminance turned down to say 100 cd/m would be an equally desirable color space for editing to match screen to print as an Adobe RGB color space (assuming two monitors that covered 100% of P3 or Adobe RGB, respectively)? Second, are there adjustments in the parameters of the P3 Photography Reference Mode that can be made in the OS software that would make it more useful for screen to print matching? That's sort of like asking: what would Andrew or TechTalk do if he was forced to use an Apple XDR Pro display? For example, is it possible to customize the target color space the way Andrew has done with his NEC monitor?
BTW, while the title of the Topic here is specifically about the Apple XDR Pro Display, the issues addressed here are equally applicable to the new Mac Studio Display. The internet is overflowing with discussions about how the new Studio Display is a less desirable (or poor) choice for someone who prints compared to other monitors that are "Adobe RGB" monitors.
-
I must be thick - all this has blown my mind. As a simple soul, the screen is viewed as transmitted light and the print as reflected light; at least that is how my school science put it. The print view is therefore influenced by the ambient lighting, as Andrew has pointed out. Soft-proofing is about trying to see on screen what the print will look like. Again Andrew has written about 'Are my prints too dark?'
It seems to me that whether softproofing works must be influenced by the softproofing algorithm. How do we know that is right for all screen, printer and paper combinations? Does it not come into the whole debate about calibration and profiling?
And just to throw another spanner in the works, does not the optical performance of the eye and mind of the beholder influence whether she or he thinks it looks good? Does the subjectivity of this cloud the issue?
If you think I am being stupid or simplistic, don't bother to tell me, just ignore me. I have no desire to let this thread degenerate into impoliteness as some threads do. I will just stop reading if that happens and certainly not rise to the bait!
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
The internet is overflowing with discussions about how the new Studio Display is a less desirable (or poor) choice for someone who prints compared to other monitors that are "Adobe RGB" monitors.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan
-
This is a fascinating discussion, and I really appreciate the input from individuals who actually know what they are talking about. As takeaways, first, would I be wrong to conclude from it that, contrary to the conventional wisdom that is pervasive on the web, the use of the P3 Photography Reference Mode for the XDR Pro Display with the luminance turned down to say 100 cd/m would be an equally desirable color space for editing to match screen to print as an Adobe RGB color space (assuming two monitors that covered 100% of P3 or Adobe RGB, respectively)? Second, are there adjustments in the parameters of the P3 Photography Reference Mode that can be made in the OS software that would make it more useful for screen to print matching? That's sort of like asking: what would Andrew or TechTalk do if he was forced to use an Apple XDR Pro display? For example, is it possible to customize the target color space the way Andrew has done with his NEC monitor?
BTW, while the title of the Topic here is specifically about the Apple XDR Pro Display, the issues addressed here are equally applicable to the new Mac Studio Display. The internet is overflowing with discussions about how the new Studio Display is a less desirable (or poor) choice for someone who prints compared to other monitors that are "Adobe RGB" monitors.
Working (editing) spaces and their gamuts are essentially reference standards. They are useful in establishing a common framework for reference within an industry like prepress or cinema production. For example ISO has a set of Adobe RGB (1998) images (https://www.iso.org/standard/45115.html) which can be used for evaluation of output and assessing quality control in prepress and graphics production. These standards are useful for establishing working space parameters and quality control in production and for making comparisons to the standard.
So if a display, for instance, is specified as having 99% Adobe RGB gamut coverage or 93% DCI-P3; you have a reference for the color boundaries on which those specifications are based. A device, like a display (monitor), has its own separate and distinct native gamut which can be compared to standard working space color gamuts and perhaps emulate them, but isn't bound by them. A device's native (full) color gamut will generally be partly within and partly outside a range of different standard gamuts.
One practical application of all this is to allow you to compare color gamuts. You can measure for comparison something like the native gamut of a display or projector, or the output gamut of a printer using a specific paper to a known standard like DCI-P3 or Adobe RGB to see where gamut color overlaps and where it doesn't. Those standards and comparisons can be very useful in a production environment to maintain accuracy, consistency, and quality control. Some of these standards are more likely to have weight in a collaborative environment when evaluating and selecting production tools than they may have for an individual content creator. For an individual editing and printing their own images, you're the sole performer of your own songs using your own instruments. You're not composing and arranging for an orchestra with various performers and different instruments trying to get them to play in the same key. So much for the background.
-
To directly answer your questions...
first, would I be wrong to conclude from it that, contrary to the conventional wisdom that is pervasive on the web, the use of the P3 Photography Reference Mode for the XDR Pro Display with the luminance turned down to say 100 cd/m would be an equally desirable color space for editing to match screen to print as an Adobe RGB color space (assuming two monitors that covered 100% of P3 or Adobe RGB, respectively)?
There really is no single correct answer here because of variables which are specific to your individual methodology and desires—thus the fuel for the fire of online debate which produces a lot of smoke. For an individual making prints of their images, ideally what you want is a monitor with enough native color gamut and enough control over its output to emulate the output from your printer with reasonable accuracy. Since that's not the answer anyone wants... my personal opinion is that in the usage I just described, Adobe RGB or P3 working spaces don't matter very much because you're working in a closed-loop environment.
Personally, I would do initial photo editing with the monitor calibrated to its full native gamut and contrast ratio and using a very large working space like ProPhoto RGB. The reason is pretty straightforward. Initially, I want to see as much of the color and tonal range of the image as possible and distill it down after I've made some initial evaluation and edits. I would then refine the initial edit using soft proofing in Photoshop to simulate the final print output using the profile for the paper and printer that I'm using. Adobe RGB or P-3 as a working space wouldn't be used or neccessary in that scenario.
In a different scenario of sending out edited images for prepress or printing, or to an art director, or video to a producer; I would likely be required to use a working space like Adobe RGB, sRGB, DCI-P3, Rec. 709, etc. to insure that everyone is working in the same standard color space. Those are working spaces that help to insure color accuracy and consistency in those environments.
So... My abridged answer is that it doesn't matter. Use whatever color space works best for your editing and printing and ignore the web and its wisdom, conventional or otherwise.
-
Thanks TechTalk for your latest input. I use Prophoto in LR and PS on the grounds that it is easier to slim down but not the other way. I am also aware that the human eye can cope with about 10 million colours so 24-bit images (8 per channel) are enough though I am not sure what the black to white range of the eye is. Jane, my wife, seems to be able to see minor colour variations much better than I. Perhaps I will retreat to B&W images!!
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
I lack writing skills, but thanks. I'm happy to at least try and blow away some of the smoke that drifts across the internet.
An interesting (to me anyway) test that demonstrates how sensitive your color perception can be to small deviations from neutral color values can be found in the Eizo online monitor test program. Try the "Color Distances" test, if you're interested. You may be able to see some pretty small differences when you barely change one of them from neutral in the color values applied.
https://www.eizo.com/library/basics/eizo-monitor-test (https://www.eizo.com/library/basics/eizo-monitor-test/)
-
Second, are there adjustments in the parameters of the P3 Photography Reference Mode that can be made in the OS software that would make it more useful for screen to print matching?
The answer to that question is yes. There are just fewer of them and some aren't very user friendly. One difference in the Apple monitors and the others you're considering is flexibility and user options. The options provided by Apple are more limited or may be less user friendly to alter than in the Sharp/NEC or Eizo models you've mentioned. That doesn't preclude it from being a good choice to satisfy what you want and need from a monitor.
You can certainly use one of the Apple displays for creating, editing, and proofing images for print and other media. You'll just have less control and fewer options. Whether that's important to you, only you can decide. Clearly, there are others better at explaining this than myself. So, let me quote from an article that I linked earlier (https://creativepro.com/how-do-p3-displays-affect-your-workflow/)...
Fortunately, working with a P3 display is no different than correctly using an Adobe RGB or sRGB display. Color-managed applications such as Photoshop, Photoshop Lightroom, and InDesign automatically use whichever display profile is selected in your Mac or Windows system preferences. A P3 display is no problem as long as the selected display profile accurately describes that display. And as long as images and other documents are tagged with an appropriate color profile, color-managed applications can reproduce colors consistently on a P3 display...
...As with Adobe RGB, working with the P3 color gamut shouldn’t complicate your workflow if it’s color-managed.
If you like what the the Apple Pro Display XDR offers (HDR and undeniably cool design) and if what it lacks (easy user calibration and flexible color settings) isn't a barrier for you, I would go for it. All the reports I've seen would suggest that it's a well calibrated display from the factory and has a wide color gamut. It also has a great contrast range, thanks to a bright backlight with full-array local dimming, for viewing HDR content.
What Sharp/NEC and Eizo offer is a wide array of configuration and calibration options to allow the user maximum control and flexibility. What they lack is HDR. They're excellent SDR monitors with support for viewing HDR content, but they're not HDR.
Ultimately, you'll decide what features, specifications, and capabilities are most important for your use and your priorities. I suspect that you'll be very happy with any of the displays that you've mentioned as replacements for your current monitor.
-
To directly answer your questions... first, would I be wrong to conclude from it that, contrary to the conventional wisdom that is pervasive on the web, the use of the P3 Photography Reference Mode for the XDR Pro Display with the luminance turned down to say 100 cd/m would be an equally desirable color space for editing to match screen to print as an Adobe RGB color space (assuming two monitors that covered 100% of P3 or Adobe RGB, respectively)?
There really is no single correct answer here because of variables which are specific to your individual methodology and desires—thus the fuel for the fire of online debate which produces a lot of smoke. For an individual making prints of their images, ideally what you want is a monitor with enough native color gamut and enough control over its output to emulate the output from your printer with reasonable accuracy. Since that's not the answer anyone wants... my personal opinion is that in the usage I just described, Adobe RGB or P3 working spaces don't matter very much because you're working in a closed-loop environment.
Personally, I would do initial photo editing with the monitor calibrated to its full native gamut and contrast ratio and using a very large working space like ProPhoto RGB. The reason is pretty straightforward. Initially, I want to see as much of the color and tonal range of the image as possible and distill it down after I've made some initial evaluation and edits. I would then refine the initial edit using soft proofing in Photoshop to simulate the final print output using the profile for the paper and printer that I'm using. Adobe RGB or P-3 as a working space wouldn't be used or neccessary in that scenario.
In a different scenario of sending out edited images for prepress or printing, or to an art director, or video to a producer; I would likely be required to use a working space like Adobe RGB, sRGB, DCI-P3, Rec. 709, etc. to insure that everyone is working in the same standard color space. Those are working spaces that help to insure color accuracy and consistency in those environments.
So... My abridged answer is that it doesn't matter. Use whatever color space works best for your editing and printing and ignore the web and its wisdom, conventional or otherwise.
Thanks. I think I have my head around it now. My editing space in PS is Pro Photo RGB, which is a very wide space, broader than both P3 and Adobe RGB. When I am editing an image in PS, there are some colors that my file may contain that are outside the gamut of my monitor, whether it's in PS or Adobe RGB. I won't be able to see those colors on my monitor and edit them. The gamuts of the 100% P3 and 100% Adobe RGB spaces for two monitors have very significant overlap, but at the margins, P3 has somewhat more coverage in the yellows/reds but Adobe RGB has somewhat more coverage in the greens/blues. The article that you referenced above contained several good examples of how this could work in the real world. However, I don't output to my monitor. I output to an Epson 9570 with specific papers, where the gamut of the printer/paper controls what can be printed. Those green/blue colors that I may see on the monitor in a monitor's Adobe RGB working space but not see in a P3 working space may not be within the printer/paper's' gamut, so they will not show up in a soft proof, they will not be printed, and they will be remapped anyway. Same with reds/yellows that I may see in a monitor's P3 working space. Of course, depending upon the printer/paper gamut, it may be that the printer can hit those "extra" greens/blues that I can see with an Adobe RGB working space or those yellows/reds that I can see with a p3 working space. I suppose that the printer will still print those colors. The bottom line, as you said, is that both working spaces can work extremely well, it is not a mistake for someone who prints to choose a monitor that uses a P3 working space. So much for what I have been reading and watching on the web, spreading FUD.
-
That's sort of like asking: what would Andrew or TechTalk do if he was forced to use an Apple XDR Pro display? For example, is it possible to customize the target color space the way Andrew has done with his NEC monitor?
The honest answer is I'm not sure. I've had hands-on experience with NEC and Eizo monitors and their software, but none with the current Apple Pro Display XDR or Studio Display. I would have to refer you to the Apple support links I've posted which describe your options.
Since you're already familiar with how to configure your NEC monitor, there's no need to cover that ground. If you're interested in the basics of setting up an Eizo with their software, this YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d93wIX5PjUw) from Eizo-APAC demonstrates the process pretty well. They have additional useful information here (https://www.eizo-apac.com/support-service/tech-library/tech-guides) or more in-depth video guides here (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3HwyPp8RczIWMPGQWSUwPDiD0g40p1Rs).
-
The article that you referenced above contained several good examples of how this could work in the real world. However, I don't output to my monitor. I output to an Epson 9570 with specific papers, where the gamut of the printer/paper controls what can be printed... Of course, depending upon the printer/paper gamut, it may be that the printer can hit those "extra" greens/blues that I can see with an Adobe RGB working space or those yellows/reds that I can see with a p3 working space. I suppose that the printer will still print those colors.
An illustration of what you're saying was included in the article (https://creativepro.com/how-do-p3-displays-affect-your-workflow/) that I previously linked in this post (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=140583.msg1238537#msg1238537). As shown below...
(https://creativepro.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Fig04-AdobeRGBDisplayP3sRGBEpExFi-split-1.jpg)
Like the Epson printer + paper example above, a monitor also has its own native gamut which may extend beyond the boundaries of standard working space gamuts like Apple Display-P3, Adobe RGB, or sRGB. This is why I normally set the monitor to native color gamut and maximum contrast for viewing images, but may choose to reduce the contrast range of the monitor for final edits and soft proofing prints to insure a closer match to actual print contrast.
The primary limitations imposed by the Apple Pro Display XDR have nothing to do with Adobe RGB (1998) vs Apple Display-P3 color space or the color gamut of the monitor, only the reduction in user controls and options.
-
An illustration of what you're saying was included in the article (https://creativepro.com/how-do-p3-displays-affect-your-workflow/) that I previously linked in this post (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=140583.msg1238537#msg1238537). As shown below...
(https://creativepro.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Fig04-AdobeRGBDisplayP3sRGBEpExFi-split-1.jpg)
Like the Epson printer + paper example above, a monitor also has its own native gamut which may extend beyond the boundaries of standard working space gamuts like Apple Display-P3, Adobe RGB, or sRGB. This is why I normally set the monitor to native color gamut and maximum contrast for viewing images, but may choose to reduce the contrast range of the monitor for final edits and soft proofing prints to insure a closer match to actual print contrast.
The primary limitations imposed by the Apple Pro Display XDR have nothing to do with Adobe RGB (1998) vs Apple Display-P3 color space or the color gamut of the monitor, only the reduction in user controls and options.
Yes, excellent article and the gamut comparisons are very useful in showing the relationship between the gamut of an inkjet printer/paper combination and the gamut of a monitor working space. The gamut of the P3 working space is a bit broader in the range of saturated yellows/oranges than the gamut of the Adobe RGB working space, and the Adobe RGB working space is a bit broader in the range of saturated cyan/blues. VERY similar, but slight differences in limited areas of the gamut of the printer/paper.
-
I am also aware that the human eye can cope with about 10 million colours so 24-bit images (8 per channel) are enough though I am not sure what the black to white range of the eye is. Jane, my wife, seems to be able to see minor colour variations much better than I. Perhaps I will retreat to B&W images!!
You should not be too surprised. According to the x-rite link below, 1 out of 255 women and 1 out of 12 men have some form of color vision deficiency. The online challenge is a much simplified way* to better understand your color vision acuity.
https://www.xrite.com/hue-test
* based on the Farnsworth Munsell 100 hue test.
-
According to the x-rite link below, 1 out of 255 women and 1 out of 12 men have some form of color vision deficiency. The online challenge is a much simplified way* to better understand your color vision acuity.
https://www.xrite.com/hue-test
* based on the Farnsworth Munsell 100 hue test.
This challenge is fascinating. I have a friend, long retired, who worked at the BBC in the UK when colour television was being introduced. In developing the camera sensors and TV screens, rendering brown was the most problematic. He said that the perception of brown was influenced by the colours around it in the image.
Obviously there is a desire/need to get the relation between screen and print as good as possible and to render as many colours as possible, but I still think that the subjective aspect of viewer perception should come into the debate as well. As image makers our view of what is on a computer screen or print is of how we remember the scene. Unless one has the image alongside the actual scene how can one know if the image is a true representation?
I am not decrying the debate about colour spaces and how different screens, printers and papers cope with these spaces. I am just as interested in how viewer acuity and the ambient light can influence the impression of what is seen.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
This challenge is fascinating. I have a friend, long retired, who worked at the BBC in the UK when colour television was being introduced. In developing the camera sensors and TV screens, rendering brown was the most problematic. He said that the perception of brown was influenced by the colours around it in the image.
Obviously there is a desire/need to get the relation between screen and print as good as possible and to render as many colours as possible, but I still think that the subjective aspect of viewer perception should come into the debate as well. As image makers our view of what is on a computer screen or print is of how we remember the scene. Unless one has the image alongside the actual scene how can one know if the image is a true representation?
I am not decrying the debate about colour spaces and how different screens, printers and papers cope with these spaces. I am just as interested in how viewer acuity and the ambient light can influence the impression of what is seen.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
I would suggest that you start a separate thread about the topic you have raised so that we can keep this topic focused on the specific issue raised in the topic.
Thanks.
-
I would suggest that you start a separate thread about the topic you have raised so that we can keep this topic focused on the specific issue raised in the topic.
Thanks.
Fair comment! I am not sure I will start another hare running, though, but I will resist any more off-topic posts in this thread.
Jonathan
-
Fair comment! I am not sure I will start another hare running, though, but I will resist any more off-topic posts in this thread.
Jonathan
Thanks.
-
I can't say that Apple loses to any device in the quality of everything. The iPhones, Macs, and iPads have the best quality displays, nice keyboards, and gentle finger pressure. I feel like a true professional when I work with iPad and the new Apple Pencil 2. I rarely resort to processing photos from my laptop or computer. Every year I read a lot of feedback on ZumRoad (https://zumroad.com/tech) that the latest iPad Pro will be able to completely replace laptops and computers for designers, editors, programmers, and retouchers. Since I'm a student who moonlights as a photo and video processor, I need to create presentations, excel spreadsheets, and more. But even that can already be done on my iPad Pro 2021. People make realistic predictions.
-
There isn't a contest to be won or lost. It's a matter of what product fits the needs and desires of an individual.
-
My NEC PA322UHD 4k 31" monitor needs to be replaced.
So, did you replace it yet?