Apple 27" LED Cinema Display for main workstation?

[Steve Weldon]

I just read an article at LuLa: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/10bit.shtml What's finally here? What is the author talking about? Unless the author changed system to Win on his Mac (with hacked drivers because at that time there were no drivers to support 10 bits) he wouldn't be able to see 10 bits... not only that- if one wants to use 10 bits in PS, you have to buy an I/O box device like Matrox MX02 since there is no support in Photoshop for real-time 10-bit colour. So.. what's up with 10 bits? Is there a way to get it on Mac / in Photoshop without costly I/O boxes and tricks?
If I'm not mistaken, the whole article at LuLa is a total misinformation / a joke or author didn't mention some crucial facts how he obtained 10-bit output. Of course he could omitt mentioning the I/O box (hey, it's only $1,5k after all;) ) but seeing how the author comments on a mouse jump issue and a cable adapter I think he would definitely mention it..plus what's the use of 10-bit if you can't use it in Photoshop? So.. did he just fell bewitched by '10 bits on paper' and what he actually was seeing was still 8 bit colour ?  I wonder

I wouldn't be too hard on any article about 10 bit color.  There are a lot of unknowns, inconsistencies, and misnomers.  All came by with the best of intentions.  We'd be lost without them.

Photoshop can use 10 bit color.  But only with certified cards.   Take some time to learn this stuff before growing too critical.

[Mr. Rib]

Well, I obviously consider myself a novice in this matter and actually rather than being appalled/irritated and critial, I find this article funny- actually it's proable that the author didn't get the 10-bit output after all, at least in Photoshop. If I sounded like an **s - sorry for that.
As I understand OS Lion didn't address the 10-bit color issue..well, we can only wait I guess and have faith that Apple market target change from prosumer to consumer didn't make them ignorant to our needs / demands. I'm sooo sure it didn't 

[digitaldog]

From what I heard and read, 10-bit output on Mac OS X is still impossible due to drivers not up to the task (yes, Windows is ahead of Apple in this department as well, strange times we live in).
I just read an article at LuLa: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/10bit.shtml What's finally here?

Nope, that article is incorrect, there is still no full support for 10-bit (high bit) path, we’re waiting on Apple.

[Mr. Rib]

That's a real bummer.. you get a great monitor, you have a good enough graphic card to display 10-bit and you can't use it because of sloppines / sluggishness of a bunch of developers.. but as I understand it's not solely Apple issue, Adobe didn't address the problem either.

[digitaldog]

but as I understand it's not solely Apple issue, Adobe didn't address the problem either.

Well according to Adobe engineers at least CS5 most certainly is and of course, our friends on Windows can utilize the full path. So no, its really not Adobe at this point but Apple. And its been on users radar long before Lion (requests for support) so presumably its not on Apple’s radar.

[Mr. Rib]

Oh, I didn't know CS5 has the 10-bit support. That's good news.Maybe because the threads I've been reading regarding 10-bit issue were a bit old I missed that.
Sigh.. I'll think twice next time when I'm buying a Mac. The reason why I bought a Mac was Mac OS, now once I get a Coloredge I'll be running Windows on my Mac Pro. Sweet irony.. bittersweet

[narikin]

Buy NEC.

+2.
and right now NEC has the offer of a free hood when buying the Spectraview models:
http://freehoodpromo.necdisplay.com/ 

totally avoid Apple monitors.

[Mr. Rib]

Yeah I'm off the Apple route. Too bad I didn't investigate deep enough to know that Mac OS doesn't have 10-bit colour support. I think I'd stick with a Windows based computer for my recent computer update and save a lot of money.. And since I'm speaking about routes- Apple is off the prosumer route, so I wouldn't be surprised if they don't address the issue at all.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Wonder if it could be ascertained whether one display is better over another in real world editing situations with regards to seeing all the nuances of an image by conducting a test editing an actual Raw image file on the higher quality display and transferring the Raw image and its xmp side car over to the other lesser quality display and check for differences.

Both displays would have to be calibrated/profiled and the Raw test image would be edited and viewed within the same Raw converter displayed through each display. The unedited Raw test image would have a wide range of colors and lights and darks and start off looking somewhat dull and flat. It's got to be a fixable image, but different enough from the final edit to actually see any benefits editing on a higher quality display.

Maybe do a screen shot and post the differences. Don't know if it would reveal anything though. Just curious.

How would someone know whether they're editing within a 10 bit pipeline? What's it look like and how does it manifest in the preview while editing?

[Steve Weldon]

Yeah I'm off the Apple route. Too bad I didn't investigate deep enough to know that Mac OS doesn't have 10-bit colour support. I think I'd stick with a Windows based computer for my recent computer update and save a lot of money.. And since I'm speaking about routes- Apple is off the prosumer route, so I wouldn't be surprised if they don't address the issue at all.

I wouldn't switch platforms based only on 10 bit color.  There are other good reasons to use either platform, but I don't think 10 bit color at this stage in the game is one of them.

[Mr. Rib]

Well, the reasons stack up.. Other reason is that there is no SATA III (not even in newest Mac Pros) which would allow to use very fast solid state drives.. +600 mb/s read and write speed are available via SATA III only. Newest SSD drives from OCZ or OWC go up to 600 mb/s and these SSDs are quite affordable. Maybe not a perfect solution for a RAID array, but definitely the best solution for a scratch disk / application disk.
Well, thunderbolt is capable of 500 mb/s but that's 500 mb/s per thunderbolt port, while SATA III miniSAS port has 4 connectible devices per port 6 Gb/s each (1 SATA II port is 3 Gb/s). Thus, thunderbolt is not as good connection option as miniSAS SATA III. Not to mention the impossibility of getting rid of mouse acceleration aka 'mouse precision' which for people doing CG / design / photo with a mouse, not only a Wacom, IS very annoying. Of course it's something you can get used to...you can also get a SATA Controller for $300-$800, then- special disk adapters to allow connection of the harddrives to the SATA controller rather than the motherboard, etc etc etc...  but all in all one can easily say Apple is well off the prosumer route- these things should be offered by a machine you're buying, not for your extra work / your extra money / your exploits and hacks. Apple IS off the pro-route, that's a fact. You still benefit from nice design and Mac OS which I think is still a bit ahead of Microsoft (although the edge Apple had has been shrinking from generation to generation of operating systems).

By the way, I've seen 10-bit colour and the difference IS noticable. It's not just a market feat. Also for graphic designers / illustrators - gradients look MUCH smoother. And guys working with color grading can benefit from ProRes 422 (or higher) 10-bit color encoding and have full control when working.  Eizo CG / Nec 271 ref is a nice alternative for the ultra-expensive LCDs destined for video editing, a compromise but still definitely something you can work with on the hi-end.

[Tim Lookingbill]

By the way, I've seen 10-bit colour and the difference IS noticable. It's not just a market feat. Also for graphic designers / illustrators - gradients look MUCH smoother. And guys working with color grading can benefit from ProRes 422 (or higher) 10-bit color encoding and have full control when working.  Eizo CG / Nec 271 ref is a nice alternative for the ultra-expensive LCDs destined for video editing, a compromise but still definitely something you can work with on the hi-end.

Just the typical response I'm talking about. You say the difference IS noticeable but you seem to lack descriptive words that match the scale of the importance and enthusiasm claimed of such an expensive high end workflow.

Smooth gradients? That's all you can come up with?

I have smooth gradients editing Raw images on my calibrated $300 Dell 2209WA LCD and 8 bit nVidea graphics included with my 2010 Mac Mini bought for $550.

Why is everyone have such a loss for words when they talk about this subject?

Like I said I'ld still like to see a Raw image edit test described above to actually see the benefits of high end technology such as this.

[theguywitha645d]

Why is everyone have such a loss for words when they talk about this subject?

Because the human visual system cannot differentiate between 8-bit and 10-bit color?

[digitaldog]

Smooth gradients?

Mostly, depends on the type of LCD you are using and the type of work you do. On a wider gamut display, its more likely you’ll need this capability than a lower gamut display. A higher bit path provides a smaller dE between subtle colors.

[Mr. Rib]

Because the human visual system cannot differentiate between 8-bit and 10-bit color?

Not true. Our eye sometimes (in case of certain colours) can't differentiate between even much shallower bit depth than 8-bit and in case of some colours differentiate with much much bigger bit depth. Our eye is NOT a linear system. Our eye's sensitivity varies from colour to colour... not only that- each one of us is more sensitive to different colours. Providing 10-bits gives us many many colours which we can't tell one from another and thus are not important / could be discarded, but will provide a sophisticated enough gamut where our eye is much more sensitive. Eye is NOT a linear system. These are the basics of DTP...
and 10-bit feat is not a marketing bullshit. By the way- you don't need a machine worth gazillions to run 10-bits - a $1000 PC would be enough, the only costly component is a 10-bit monitor. I'm not sure what is the cheapest 10-bit NEC but it definitely isn't unobtainable.

...I have smooth gradients editing Raw images on my calibrated $300 Dell 2209WA LCD and 8 bit nVidea graphics included with my 2010 Mac Mini bought for $550.
Why is everyone have such a loss for words when they talk about this subject?
...

Well, it all depends what you're shooting with. Take a photo with a good digiback (we are in a medium format / digibacks section right?). The same photo viewed on a 10-bit monitor running at 8-bit and the same 10-bit monitor running in 10-bit will look differently. Mainly colour transitions- they will be more sophisticated in some areas.. in fact the whole image is more sophisticated, but our eye will catch only certain areas. If you'd shoot some very saturated vibrant colours you'd probably not notice anything. But for instance a landscape- yes, there are more colours noticable. You don't believe me? Go make the test.

[budjames]

We might not have much choice in the future if the rumors of Apple retiring the MacPro turn out to be true. That would leave us with MacBook Pro, MacBook Air and iMacs.

I run a MacPro with Eizo ColorEdge CE240W as my main photo processor (Lightroom 3.5 and Photoshop CS5). I use my MacBook Air for light duty field backup and cataloging of images, but it lacks the horsepower of my MacPro.

It seems that Apple is focusing on consumer products these days or, in other words, they are going where the money is.

Cheers.
Bud

[Tim Lookingbill]

Eye is NOT a linear system. These are the basics of DTP...and 10-bit feat is not a marketing bullshit. By the way- you don't need a machine worth gazillions to run 10-bits - a $1000 PC would be enough, the only costly component is a 10-bit monitor. I'm not sure what is the cheapest 10-bit NEC but it definitely isn't unobtainable.

Mainly colour transitions- they will be more sophisticated in some areas.. in fact the whole image is more sophisticated, but our eye will catch only certain areas.

You seem to know a lot about the science of color theory and human vision. In fact I'ld say you present yourself as being "sophisticated" in your knowledge on the subject from all the words you use to express your enthusiasm...

But then all you can come up with in describing what you're seeing is the word "SOPHISTICATED?!" That's it? What does that look like? Can you only see this viewing the image at 100% view?

Other zoom levels in some software truncate the previews like in ACR. I'm sure you know how hard it is to edit a high rez file having to view it at 100%. It's like trying to figure out if you're looking at an elephant or a wall of leather. It fills the screen. I face this editing 3000x2000 DSLR PEF's on a 22in. screen. I can't imagine what a much higher rez medium format digital back image is going to look like at 100%. You're going to need 5 monitors just to tile it so you can get a gist of the overall look.

I'm not concerned about the price of this technology. I only care about how it would improve image editing and that requires a much more "sophisticated" visual description. I don't have access to any 10 bit monitor or video pipeline so I can't test for myself.

But I think I got the gist of its importance from Andrew's comment about its use for wide gamut displays. That I do understand. The amount of saturation and luminance levels engineered into these types of displays is definitely going to need extra bits to tweak and push tonal levels into the extremes and pull as much nuance out of the capture as possible.

Marketing bullshit? Didn't say it was. I'm just looking for answers that aren't bullshit. That's all.

[Steve Weldon]

Mostly, depends on the type of LCD you are using and the type of work you do. On a wider gamut display, its more likely you’ll need this capability than a lower gamut display. A higher bit path provides a smaller dE between subtle colors.

Let's say we're using equal quality 8 and 10 bit video cards in like systems, and running them into a top quality 10 bit capable monitor like the NEC PA271w..  Same computer, same level of video cards from the same company, same exact monitor.  What differences are we likely to see and will it be file/source dependent, or will it be something we can expect to see in all files?

I've only had a few chances to view 10 bit monitors running 10 bits, and only one side by side, and I had to zoom in to 100%+ to 'think' I was seeing differences.  And the differences I did see I wondered if the profile could have caused them.  I do realize there's a lot to training the eye to see certain differences, is this such a thing?

[gazwas]

It seems that Apple is focusing on consumer products these days or, in other words, they are going where the money is.

I disagree. IMO, the cost Intel are asking for the processors in the Mac Pro are unrealistic and makes the Mac Pro a very niche product that many don't need and probably why it must be difficult for Apple to continue offering it. The last great Mac Pro was the 2008 model with more recent models lacking important features (USB3, SATA3, Thunderbolt) but still costing the earth.

The latest iMac models, while not perfect are very capable machines, especially where photographers are concerned. With the addition on a secondary NEC or Eizo display I really don't see a need for the Pro any longer at these highly elevated prices. The idea of the tower computer is the upgrade ability but the Pro has never been great for that considering Apple usually drops support for older models every other refresh.

When I feel a need to upgrade my Mac Pro, I'll be taking a long hard look at the iMac with the best external display on offer at that time. IMO the display is more important than the computer when looking at Apples desktop and mobile offerings these days. 

[Mr. Rib]

..snip..
But then all you can come up with in describing what you're seeing is the word "SOPHISTICATED?!" That's it? What does that look like? Can you only see this viewing the image at 100% view?
..snip..
Marketing bullshit? Didn't say it was. I'm just looking for answers that aren't bullshit. That's all.

What I "came up with" is that you get more colours in the gamut areas where your eye is capable of distinguishing more colours than what 8-bit palette is offering. Other than that, you are getting a lot of colours which could be discarded, but it's all up to one's eye where exactly these areas are, although there are some rules which apply to all of us and some colours could be universally discarded because noone can see the difference between them and their 'neighbours' in gamut. A hi-end video equipment and photo equipment can provide you with a 10-bit output so the information is there. Now again, what makes my answer a bullshit? You want a real life example? Then go and do the test, because even if I tell you where I see the differences comparing the same photo at 8-bit and 10-bit system, you may see the differences in somewhat other areas.
Oh and I didn't say that 10-bit is the holy grail of PP, but I do think that it is a step forward and since good monitors have this capability and my computer also meets the requirements, why shouldn't I be using it? It's as simple as that, there's not much enthusiasm in it. My enthusiasm however is there when it comes to gamut of these hi-end displays like NEC reference and EIZO CG, it makes a LOT of difference comparing to DELL / other monitors of this level. 10 bits are an extra, which I'd like to use as well.