Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: Rob Reiter on December 13, 2015, 11:52:27 pm
-
A client of mine has a new Mac Pro and NEC PA302w monitor. Witht the supplied DVI-D cable and a Mini Display Port adapter she can only get 1920 1200 resolution. The monitor also has ports for Mini Display port, Display Port and HDMI. Is it a matter of choosing a different port to get the 2560x1600 resolution this monitor is capable of?
-
Use mDP - DP cable (AFAIK should be in the box). You need active dual-link DVI adapter to get full 2560x1600px resolution, so it won't work with standard mDP-DVI adapter.
-
Use mDP - DP cable (AFAIK should be in the box). You need active dual-link DVI adapter to get full 2560x1600px resolution, so it won't work with standard mDP-DVI adapter.
can't you use HDMI port in his monitor too ? I least I can drive my 2560x1440 through HDMI (dGPU GTX 870m + iGPU 4600)
-
can't you use HDMI port in his monitor too ? I least I can drive my 2560x1440 through HDMI (dGPU GTX 870m + iGPU 4600)
HDMI connection is usually limited to 30Hz
-
A client of mine has a new Mac Pro and NEC PA302w monitor. Witht the supplied DVI-D cable and a Mini Display Port adapter she can only get 1920 1200 resolution. The monitor also has ports for Mini Display port, Display Port and HDMI. Is it a matter of choosing a different port to get the 2560x1600 resolution this monitor is capable of?
Yes. It comes with a display port - mini display port cable. Just plug it in to one of the thunderbolt ports and that's it.
-
Also, I seem to recall that that the monitor does not display its full (wide) color gamut unless it is connected to the Display Port bus.
-
Incorrect. Any input can display any color gamut selection.
Also, I seem to recall that that the monitor does not display its full (wide) color gamut unless it is connected to the Display Port bus.
-
HDMI connection is usually limited to 30Hz
I just checked - display reports HDMI 2560x1440x60hz
-
Incorrect. Any input can display any color gamut selection.
Thank you for the correction. It seems I misunderstood this from the product info for my PA241W:
14-bit internal 3D LUTs, displays
1.07billion colors out of 4.3 trillion（10-bit DisplayPort input);
16.7million colors out of 1.05 billion color palette（DVI-D input）
However, the specs for the PA302W say:
1.07 billion out of 4.3 trillion (10-bit DisplayPort or HDMI input); 16.7 million colors
out of 1.05 billion color palette (DVI-D)
-
Thank you for the correction. It seems I misunderstood this from the product info for my PA241W:
14-bit internal 3D LUTs, displays
1.07billion colors out of 4.3 trillion（10-bit DisplayPort input);
16.7million colors out of 1.05 billion color palette（DVI-D input）
However, the specs for the PA302W say:
1.07 billion out of 4.3 trillion (10-bit DisplayPort or HDMI input); 16.7 million colors
out of 1.05 billion color palette (DVI-D)
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.
Case in point: here are two device values that are the same color:
(http://www.digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersNotColors.jpg)
-
Case in point: here are two device values that are the same color:
(http://www.digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersNotColors.jpg)
why the Lab readouts are 8bit integers though ? up the precision and Lab will be different.
-
why the Lab readouts are 8bit integers though ? up the precision and Lab will be different.
So what? It's still far below human perception (far less than a dE of 1). Slice it any way you wish; we can't visually see any difference between those two device values. They ARE the same color. They may have differing device values with more precision but that's not the point.
-
why the Lab readouts are 8bit integers though ? up the precision and Lab will be different.
More precision from ColorThink Pro, dE report (0.01). Happy? The same color or two different colors?
-
So what? It's still far below human perception (far less than a dE of 1).
depens how far is far and which dE, no ? so it is technically better to illustrate with the proper precision becuse Lab values __ARE__ different, then you can make an argument that dE-whatever is like less than 0.01... but it is still not absolute zero (numbers-wise).
-
depens how far is far and which dE, no ?
In this example no. The two device values are 0.01dE (dE 2000) which is INVISIBLE to any human expect maybe the StarChild at the end of 2001: A space odyssey who at that point isn't a human. :o
Do you really believe we humans can see 16.7 million colors (let alone billions or trillions)?
I think you're missing the important distinction between device values and colors, the later being something we humans can see!
-
In this example no. The two device values are 0.01dE (dE 2000) which is INVISIBLE to any human expect maybe the StarChild at the end of 2001: A space odyssey who at that point isn't a human. :o
Do you really believe we humans can see 16.7 million colors (let alone billions or trillions)?
I was talking only about the illustration in your posting - you can't use incorrect statements that lab values are the same to support the valid point... that's it... nothing about the bigger picture here at all... I do agree that dE-whatever = 0.01 or less is too small for regular humans !
-
I was talking only about the illustration in your posting - you can't use incorrect statements that lab values are the same to support the valid point... that's it... nothing about the bigger picture here at all... I do agree that dE-whatever = 0.01 or less is too small for regular humans !
Sorry (going OT) but that's rubbish. The two Lab values are the same without the added precision and if you understand Lab values, it should be clear they are not visibly different! They ARE the same color!
The added decimal you requested wasn't necessary, nor the dE report. Other than to show your requests for added precision isn't at all necessary and that the dE values are super tiny; invisible by a large degree. ::)
What you stated in this context of color perception is untrue: up the precision and Lab will be different.
I do agree that dE-whatever = 0.01 or less is too small for regular humans !
By a long shot; try dE 1.0 to be kind.... So will you answer the question so we can move on? Do you really believe we humans can see 16.7 million colors (let alone billions or trillions)?
-
Sorry (going OT) but that's rubbish. The two Lab values are the same without the added precision
there are 2 different Lab values dispayed with insufficient precision that creates an "impression" that they are equal... they are not... you mix the real value and its presentation... the real value was never ever 8bit integer... more over 2 colors can have the same 8bit interger value and be visually different, I tried for example in CT&A 99.5/0.49/0.49 vs 99.5/-0.49/-0.49 both are if 8bit integer are rounded to 100,0,0 and I can see the difference when on patch is displayed within the other... granted dE2K is big > 1, but 8 bit integer Lab values rounded to the identical numbers... just correct the illustration or put a comment, that's it...
-
try dE 1.0 to be kind.
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
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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:
-
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...
-
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?
-
And then we have Lightroom and how it scales Lab values with decimals compared to PS.
-
peace then
-
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
-
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:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.