Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Rant 23  (Read 39196 times)

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
Rant 23
« Reply #100 on: October 06, 2009, 10:35:51 am »

Quote
That doesn't sound right to me. I admit the contrast ratio of LCDs is improving all the time and the really expensive LCD monitors may well be as good as any CRT monitor was, for all I know. Whilst the greater luminosity of the LCD monitor may be very good for sales (nice and shiny), it's not necessarily good for calibration and photographic processing, as I understand. Relatively low luminosity but very high contrast ratio is best for photographic purposes. The plasma display would seem to be ideal in this respect.
Today's better LCD's have good enough black points that it's no longer an issue. My Eizo can get to 0.3cdm^2, I don't see any point in going lower than that. My LCD also has excellent grayscale tracking and a color gamut that exceeds sRGB. I held out with CRT for a long time because the early LCD's were no good. But my current display is better than any CRT I ever used.


Quote
You may be right, but what makes you think that only manufacturers of plasma displays exaggerate their specifications?
I never said they were the only ones to exaggerate. Desktop LCD's claiming 10,000:1 contrast ratios are equally stupid. In fact, displays that claim such extremely high contrast ratios are probably not going to calibrate well, because the white point will be too high. You typically want a white point in the 90-150 cdm^2 range depending on your ambient light and personal preferences (I calibrate to 100cdm^2). Many of these super-bright displays won't go that low, or if they do it seriously degrades other aspects of performance.


Quote
I'm not aware that there is any disadvantage in the monitor having a higher contrast ratio than is required to display a particular scene, just as I can see no disadvantage in a camera having a higher dynamic range capability than is required to capture a particular scene with a low SBR.
First, do some simple math. Even if a plasma/crt can hit 0.01 cdm^2, a 40,000:1 contrast ratio would mean a white point of 400 cdm^2. You don't want a display that bright. A contrast range that extreme would be murder on your eyes, especially since to differentiate the darkest tones would require working in a completely dark room. You really don't want a contrast ratio higher than about 300-500:1 for graphics work, and even that is far greater than what can be achieved in print.
Logged
Jeff Kohn
[url=http://ww

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10285
Rant 23
« Reply #101 on: October 06, 2009, 09:33:51 pm »

Quote from: JeffKohn
First, do some simple math. Even if a plasma/crt can hit 0.01 cdm^2, a 40,000:1 contrast ratio would mean a white point of 400 cdm^2. You don't want a display that bright. A contrast range that extreme would be murder on your eyes, especially since to differentiate the darkest tones would require working in a completely dark room. You really don't want a contrast ratio higher than about 300-500:1 for graphics work, and even that is far greater than what can be achieved in print.


You seem to be confusing contrast ratio with brightness, just like tho_mas. If in tandem with a high CR your monitor also has a high brightness, then it's quite likely that you will need to reduce the brightness for calibration purposes and as a consequence the CR will also effectively be reduced.

There have been numerous discussions on the forum about this issue. For photographic purposes a high CR in combination with a relatively low brightness seems to give best results. The LCD has traditionally been weak on this point. It appears to be the case that some people have been fooled by what appears to be a good CR according to manufacturers' specs, are attracted to the monitor because the image is bright in daylight, then find on calibration that the CR of their monitor is not as good as they thought it would be because they have had to turn down the brightness.

Now, I'm not sure if the following simple maths really applies to your example of the 40,000:1 plasma with a brightness of 400 nits. I'm not a calibration expert or a color scientist. However, if we reduce the brightness of that display from 400 nits to, say 80 nits, we end up with a contrast ratio of 40,000 x 80/400 = 8000:1.

Lets say the manufacturer has exaggerated the CR specs. Let's say it's really only 1/4th of what they claim. We still have effectively a monitor with a CR of 2,000:1 and a brightness or white point of 80 nits.

If this calculation is valid (and I accept that it may not be that simple) we may have a clear case of over-kill, but at least we're sure that the CR will never be inadequate. It doesn't matter if the equipment is better than it needs to be, as long as the price is not higher than it needs to be. I imagine there would be difficulties in calibrating such a display, but that's another issue. None of my calibration packages have an option for plasma displays.

Pom's point is quite correct in my view. You need a really expensive LCD monitor to match the qualities of the old CRT. I notice that there's an Eizo monitor that claims to display 97% of the ARGB gamut, the 24" CG241W at a price of A$3,545. It has a claimed CR of 850:1 and a brightness of 300 nits.

I think my 19" Sony Trinitron cost about A$1,200 several years ago. I'm not happy about spending over $3,000 for a replacement, especially now that I've discovered that my old Sony can display a good portion of the Adobe RGB gamut. What portion I don't know, but certainly wider than sRGB.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 09:38:03 pm by Ray »
Logged

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
Rant 23
« Reply #102 on: October 06, 2009, 10:58:07 pm »

Quote
You seem to be confusing contrast ratio with brightness, just like tho_mas. If in tandem with a high CR your monitor also has a high brightness, then it's quite likely that you will need to reduce the brightness for calibration purposes and as a consequence the CR will also effectively be reduced.
No, I am not confusing anything. Do you know what a contrast ratio is? It's the ratio between the maximum white and the deepest black that a display can reproduce.

Quote
Now, I'm not sure if the following simple maths really applies to your example of the 40,000:1 plasma with a brightness of 400 nits. I'm not a calibration expert or a color scientist. However, if we reduce the brightness of that display from 400 nits to, say 80 nits, we end up with a contrast ratio of 40,000 x 80/400 = 8000:1.

Lets say the manufacturer has exaggerated the CR specs. Let's say it's really only 1/4th of what they claim. We still have effectively a monitor with a CR of 2,000:1 and a brightness or white point of 80 nits.
I was using an absurd example, I don't for a minute believe that any current displays can reach a black level of .01 cdm^2. And even if you cut that by 1/4, a 2000:1 ratio at 80 cdm^2 would require a black level of .04 cdm^2, which is still not realistic. And even if it was, you'd have to sit in a pitch black room to observe such black levels.

Quote
Pom's point is quite correct in my view. You need a really expensive LCD monitor to match the qualities of the old CRT. I notice that there's an Eizo monitor that claims to display 97% of the ARGB gamut, the 24" CG241W at a price of A$3,545. It has a claimed CR of 850:1 and a brightness of 300 nits.

I think my 19" Sony Trinitron cost about A$1,200 several years ago. I'm not happy about spending over $3,000 for a replacement, especially now that I've discovered that my old Sony can display a good portion of the Adobe RGB gamut. What portion I don't know, but certainly wider than sRGB.
I don't know where you got your pricing, maybe that's the official MSRP from Eizo; but I paid $2K for my CG241W about 2 years ago, and ColorMall.com is currently selling them for $1800. Not such a far cry from your $1200 Sony when you consider the Eizo is a larger display. There are also more affordable displays from NEC among others that would still exceed the performance of your Sony CRT (which BTW at $1200 is hardly representative of the CRT's most people were using back in the day).

Logged
Jeff Kohn
[url=http://ww

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10285
Rant 23
« Reply #103 on: October 07, 2009, 12:08:16 am »

Quote from: JeffKohn
No, I am not confusing anything. Do you know what a contrast ratio is? It's the ratio between the maximum white and the deepest black that a display can reproduce.


Exactly! As regards contrast ratio, Plasma displays are at the top of the list, then CRTs, then LCDs. (Although some folks still claim that the CR of a good CRT might still be the best). Of course, there may be some overlap according to price. Development of CRTs ceased long ago. As I mentioned before, both plasma and CRT are able to render blacker blacks because their pixels can be virtually turned off. LCDs have to contend with that back-light which is never turned off.

However, if you pay enough, I accept that a good LCD will be perfectly adequate for photographic purposes, just as my Sony Trinitron is perfectly adequate for my purposes, with the exception of those few subtle shades of color that exist in the ProPhoto space, that may be apparent on a print but not necessarily apparent on my monitor, or yours.

Quote
I was using an absurd example, I don't for a minute believe that any current displays can reach a black level of .01 cdm^2.

Why not? If individual pixels can be turned off so they emit no light whatsoever, then such a monitor should be capable of amazing CR. Whether your viewing conditions are suitable to appreciate such enhanced CR is another matter. I'm very pleased so far with the detail I see on black suits on my partner's 11th generation 50" Panasonic plasma TV with a mere 30,000:1 contrast ratio. I look forward to getting one of Panasonic's latest 12th generation Viera models with an even better CR of 40,000:1 and a claimed dynamic (on/off) CR of 2,000,000:1.

I'd like to get the ultra-thin, wireless 54" model and hang it on the wall like a picture, but I'll probably get the much cheaper, standard 54" model and buy a 5D2 with the price difference   . However, I might over-indulge and get both. ISO 6400 shots on the 5D2, downsampled to 1920x1080, might look okay   .

Quote
I don't know where you got your pricing, maybe that's the official MSRP from Eizo; but I paid $2K for my CG241W about 2 years ago, and ColorMall.com is currently selling them for $1800. Not such a far cry from your $1200 Sony when you consider the Eizo is a larger display. There are also more affordable displays from NEC among others that would still exceed the performance of your Sony CRT (which BTW at $1200 is hardly representative of the CRT's most people were using back in the day).

My prices are all in Australian dollars. A quick google for a best price for the CG241W came up with A$3250. My attitude is, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. I think many of us in the past have struggled to get a good match between monitor and print. I have such a good match. I'll hang on to my current Sony monitor for as long as it continues to provide that good match.

I recently bought an Acer P244w 24" LCD monitor for my laptop which has a BD reader. The monitor is capable of the full HD resolution of 1920x1080 and of course has an HDMI input. I thought it might be useful to watch the occasional Blu-ray movie, but also thought it might calibrate better than my laptop screen. It probably does, but it's not a patch on my Sony Trinitron. Rather poor contrast ratio, but it's a cheap monitor of course.

Edit: By the way, if I compare apples with apples, I'd be looking at an Eizo CG19, same size and aspect ratio as my Sony, but lower maximum resolution. It has no claim for displaying the Adobe RGB gamut, has a CR of 450:1 and a brightness of 280 nits, which is good. But would it be better than my Sony? Best price from a Google search, A$2,200.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 02:32:55 am by Ray »
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #104 on: October 07, 2009, 04:29:22 am »

Quote from: Ray
now that I've discovered that my old Sony can display a good portion of the Adobe RGB gamut. What portion I don't know, but certainly wider than sRGB.
maybe some day you will discover the directory of your montitor profile on your computer as well ...
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10285
Rant 23
« Reply #105 on: October 07, 2009, 05:35:06 am »

Quote from: tho_mas
maybe some day you will discover the directory of your montitor profile on your computer as well ...


Directory? Do you mean, System32/spool/drivers/color, where my profiles reside? What are you trying to say? Speak clearly.
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #106 on: October 07, 2009, 05:59:32 am »

Quote from: Ray
Directory? Do you mean, System32/spool/drivers/color, where my profiles reside? What are you trying to say? Speak clearly.
I've already asked for your monitor profile above but apparently you are not able to provide it by now:
Quote from: Ray
Quote from: tho_mas
If you could provide a profile of your monitor...
I can find no inherent profile specified for my monitor. However, my monitor is profiled with an Eye-One colorimeter
If you would post your monitor profile I could load it into Color Think and compare it to Jack's color patches and e.g. to my CG241W profile and something more.
Would be much more enlightening (for you!) as your chain of evidence.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10285
Rant 23
« Reply #107 on: October 07, 2009, 08:43:12 am »

Quote from: tho_mas
I've already asked for your monitor profile above but apparently you are not able to provide it by now:
I can find no inherent profile specified for my monitor. However, my monitor is profiled with an Eye-One colorimeter
If you would post your monitor profile I could load it into Color Think and compare it to Jack's color patches and e.g. to my CG241W profile and something more.
Would be much more enlightening (for you!) as your chain of evidence.


Sorry! I thought you were referring to the manufacturer's profile for my monitor. PM me your email address and I'll send you the latest profile I created.
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3368
Rant 23
« Reply #108 on: October 07, 2009, 10:58:19 am »

Quote from: madmanchan
Along the lines of Jack's post, I have some gamut plot examples here (two papers, plus an old ~sRGB display):

http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Ep...800/gamuts.html

the take-home point being that sometimes there are two different colors that can be seen on the display, which may not be seen in print, and similarly sometimes there are two different colors that appear in print, but cannot be distinguished on the display.

Eric,

An excellent demonstration of gamut mismatching between color spaces that prompted me to review some of my files and thoughts on the matter. In addition to comparing the gamuts of various color spaces, one should also consider the real world colors contained in those spaces and how those colors can be reproduced on screen and in print. Gernot Hoffmann (see page 10 of this large PDF) and Kodak have determined what colors in real world images should be reproduced and this gamut is outside of sRGB and aRGB, and when working in ACR, ProPhotoRGB is the space that can contain these colors. However, some of these colors can not be reproduced on screen (with a sRGB monitor) or in print even with a wide gamut device such as the Epson 9600 with Premium Lustre paper.

Here is an image (original in ProPhotoRGB but shown in sRGB for internet display) of a flower with moderately saturated purple and yellow:

[attachment=17020:DSC_0056_sRGB.jpg]

The gamuts of the image, sRGB, and the Epson 9600 printer with Premium Lustre paper are shown below. The purples are well outside the gamut of the printer, but are mostly contained within sRGB. Such examples as this are the basis for my previous statement in this thread that wide gamut printing is somewhat of a misnomer. The yellows are well outside the sRGB gamut, but are mostly within gamut for the printer.

[attachment=17021:056_Gamuts.png]

This pseudocolor plot demonstrates the ΔEs of the mismatch, giving an indication of how the eye would perceive such differences for the screen and printer. The screen sRGB has a much smaller ΔE for the purple than does the printer. The reverse is true for the yellows.

[attachment=17025:GamutVis..._Ep_9600.png]

[attachment=17023:GamutVison056_sRGB.png]

This image contains greens in the leaves of the lily plant which are out of gamut for both the printer and screen, but more so for the screen. As your plots showed, sRGB is deficient in low luminance greens and the printer is much better with these colors. The Delta Es are smaller for the printer and if one were rendering into sRGB, these would be lost and the gamut of the printer would not have been used to advantage. The difference is about 4 or 5 delta Es, and I am not sure how apparent this would be to the eye in a print.

[attachment=17026:0011_sRGB.jpg]

[attachment=17027:011_Gamuts.png]

[attachment=17028:GamutVis..._Ep_9600.png]

[attachment=17029:GamutVison011_sRGB.png]
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10285
Rant 23
« Reply #109 on: October 07, 2009, 12:10:39 pm »

Quote from: bjanes
Here is an image (original in ProPhotoRGB but shown in sRGB for internet display) of a flower with moderately saturated purple and yellow:

[attachment=17020:DSC_0056_sRGB.jpg]

The gamuts of the image, sRGB, and the Epson 9600 printer with Premium Lustre paper are shown below. The purples are well outside the gamut of the printer, but are mostly contained within sRGB. Such examples as this are the basis for my previous statement in this thread that wide gamut printing is somewhat of a misnomer. The yellows are well outside the sRGB gamut, but are mostly within gamut for the printer.

Wow! That purple really is way out of the gamut of even Premium Glossy. However, colors that can be seen on the monitor, but are outside the gamut of the printer/paper, can be brought back into gamut using selections and reduction of contrast or luminance.

The greater concern would be colors that one can't see on the monitor but which appear on the print, thus creating the impression that perhaps one's monitor calibration or printer/paper profile is not adequate. As a matter of fact, I recall when using ColorEyes on my 32 bit system that I had minor trouble with certain shades appearing slightly different on the print to what my monitor displayed. I later bought an Eye-One because Gretag Macbeth were quicker off the mark to develop a driver for my new Win 64 bit system. I believe my calibration also became more accurate, but it's just an impression. I haven't got the time or the reason to do a rigorous comparison. If something works and does the job, there's little need to look for improvements.

Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #110 on: October 07, 2009, 12:32:09 pm »

Thanks for the profile.

So… first with CRTs it's not possible to make hardware calibration (well, it is possible with highend monitors but you need totally different devices).
So the gray axis is linearized on the Video LUT of the graphics card.
In your case the blue channel is cut at the low end.
That means: your monitor doesn't display the full tonal range of an 8bit image due to softwarecalibration and due to a weak gray balance at the low end:
[attachment=17031:01_lut.jpg]

Here's your monitor colour space (white) compared to sRGB.
Basically your monitor matches sRGB quite well … it exceeds sRGB in yellow and green but does not reach the red and blue primaries:
[attachment=17032:02_sony_srgb.jpg]

Here's the same but in addition with AdobeRGB:
[attachment=17033:03_sony_srgb_argb.jpg]

Here's your monitor (white), AdobeRGB (colored) and my CG241W (yellow).
My monitor is quite similar to AdobeRGB. The primaries blue and green are a little less saturated, red exceeds AdobeRGB.
So after 6545 hours of use it's pretty much within the marketed specs of the above mentioned 97% AdobeRGB.
[attachment=17034:04_sony_argb_eizo.jpg]

From Jack's test image I took the portraits (as a "real world" image).
Here's the colour plot of the portraits:
[attachment=17035:04_portraits_color.jpg]

The same compared to your monitor profile:
[attachment=17036:05_portr...lor_sony.jpg]

The same compared to the Eizo:
[attachment=17037:06_portr...ony_eizo.jpg]

So regarding your post #90: evidence provided (regarding the gamut of a mid range LCD - the CG241W is not bad, but there are displays with higher gamut).
Too, due to hardware calibration the Eizo displays the full tonal range with fine transitions (so without banding) and with a clean gray axis from white to black (the worst variance is 0.5 DeltaE). You'll get similar results even with cheaper Eizo displays as the are linearized ex factory quite good (AFAIK the same applies to NEC displays).
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 12:35:31 pm by tho_mas »
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3368
Rant 23
« Reply #111 on: October 07, 2009, 12:37:11 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Wow! That purple really is way out of the gamut of even Premium Glossy. However, colors that can be seen on the monitor, but are outside the gamut of the printer/paper, can be brought back into gamut using selections and reduction of contrast or luminance.

The greater concern would be colors that one can't see on the monitor but which appear on the print, thus creating the impression that perhaps one's monitor calibration or printer/paper profile is not adequate.

Yes, when working in ProPhotoRGB in Photoshop and using current monitors, there is a problem with softproofing with images that are within the gamut of the printer but outside the gamut of the monitor. When editing the image to fit within the printer gamut, the result can not be shown on the monitor. One can use the out of gamut warning, but this is all or none and the result could be just out of gamut or out of gamut by a large amount. One work around would be to have a pseudocolor preview showing Delta Es similar to the GamutVison plots I showed in my previous post.

[attachment=17038:GamutWarning_056.png]
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3368
Rant 23
« Reply #112 on: October 07, 2009, 12:45:25 pm »

Quote from: michael
So my thesis isn't that prints are a superior means of showing ones images (though for me they are). I realize that many people never print. But, simply that with today's technology they can't show you everything that's in the file the way a print can. Or, if they can, they suffer from very high cost, the extremes of technology, or other impediments.

Michael

It is a mistake to think that a print can show everything in the file. With some images, even an sRGB monitor can easily display colors that are out of gamut of current printers. For example, see my post 110 in this thread,

Regards,

Bill
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10285
Rant 23
« Reply #113 on: October 07, 2009, 01:25:29 pm »

Quote from: tho_mas
Thanks for the profile.

Tho_mas,
Thanks for the analysis. Are these results dependent upon the quality of the calibration? As I mentioned in my email, the profile was generated in automatic mode. I've never felt the need to mess around with manual selections, although I tried that when experimenting with the calibration of a new a plasma TV. I seemed to get errors and gave up..


Quote
Basically your monitor matches sRGB quite well … it exceeds sRGB in yellow and green but does not reach the red and blue primaries:

This sounds bad. On the other hand, bjanes has just posted an image of a purple flower with embedded sRGB profile, that is way out of gamut in relation to my widest gamut paper for my printer, Premium Glossy. Purple is a mixture of blue and red. I see no reason to be concerned about my monitor not being able to display colors that my printer is also not able to display. That my monitor exceeds the sRGB primaries in yellow and green is probably just fine because my printer also exceeds such primaries   .

For me, what counts is getting a workable and sufficiently close match between monitor and print. I have that at present.

Thanks again for your work on this.
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Rant 23
« Reply #114 on: October 07, 2009, 03:07:16 pm »

Quote from: Ray
This sounds bad.
It certainly isn't good Ray -- your monitor is basically rendering about 6-bits of data.

Quote
On the other hand, bjanes has just posted an image of a purple flower with embedded sRGB profile, that is way out of gamut in relation to my widest gamut paper for my printer, Premium Glossy. Purple is a mixture of blue and red. I see no reason to be concerned about my monitor not being able to display colors that my printer is also not able to display. That my monitor exceeds the sRGB primaries in yellow and green is probably just fine because my printer also exceeds such primaries   .
I suspect if you proof it with a profile for the x900 printer on PPPLuster, you will see a significant improvement to the blues and purples over ANY x600 profile.  (Actually, it is possible you WON'T see it on your monitor!)

Quote
For me, what counts is getting a workable and sufficiently close match between monitor and print. I have that at present.
It maybe is visually, but then your printer is 2-1/2 generations old -- the newest printers are visibly superior. And before everybody gets bent out of shape,  I'm not saying the x600 printers are bad, just that x800 and up (as well as newer HP's and Canons) are going to be visibly better...

Cheers,
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 03:09:02 pm by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10285
Rant 23
« Reply #115 on: October 07, 2009, 03:23:21 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
It certainly isn't good Ray -- your monitor is basically rendering about 6-bits of data.


I suspect if you proof it with a profile for the x900 printer on PPPLuster, you will see a significant improvement to the blues and purples over ANY x600 profile.  (Actually, it is possible you WON'T see it on your monitor!)


It maybe is visually, but then your printer is 2-1/2 generations old -- the newest printers are visibly superior. And before everybody gets bent out of shape,  I'm not saying the x600 printers are bad, just that x800 and up (as well as newer HP's and Canons) are going to be visibly better...

Cheers,

Jack,
The issue of calibration accuracy has not been answered. I'm not a geek and generally prefer automatic solutions. The profile analyzed by Tho_mas was an automatic product.

Quote
I suspect if you proof it with a profile for the x900 printer on PPPLuster, you will see a significant improvement to the blues and purples over ANY x600 profile.  (Actually, it is possible you WON'T see it on your monitor!)

Maybe. Can we be sure? That purple flower from bjanes was very much out of gamut. With an x900 I would guess it would still be out of gamut, but to a slightly lesser degree.

Could we say we are now engaged in the pixel-peeping equivalent of color rendition?  
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #116 on: October 07, 2009, 03:26:49 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Are these results dependent upon the quality of the calibration?
in part certainly. Colorimeters are not very accurate in dark tonal values... this is another reason to boost the blackpoint to 0.3cd/m2 (of course only on displays that have a lower black point nativley and that are appropriate for hardware calibration). Spectralphotometers are even worse in dark tonal values.
As long as you can work with your equipment and are satisfied with the results that's all fine. But when you once have seen a perfectly calibrated display with wide gamut side by side with a print in a viewing booth you start to wonder if it might be time to move on.
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #117 on: October 07, 2009, 03:32:21 pm »

Quote from: Ray
That purple flower from bjanes was very much out of gamut.
it doesn't make sense to argue from a certain example to the next certain example. As long as you want to print high saturated colours (either way yellow, blue, red, magenta or whatever) a wide gamut display makes sense. As long as you want to see fine transitions without artefacts (especially for black&white) a display with hardware calibration and at least 10bit, better 12bit LUT and 16bit processing makes sense - a lot of sense. Your TV simply can't show what these displays can show. That's pure physics.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 03:37:01 pm by tho_mas »
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Rant 23
« Reply #118 on: October 07, 2009, 03:41:01 pm »

Quote from: Ray
With an x900 I would guess it would still be out of gamut, but to a slightly lesser degree.

Well you are free to "guess" all you want .  

Speaking for myself, I have compared multiple prints side-by-side out of a variety of printers.  Which is exactly why I sold my x600 the second I could get my hands on an x800.  Also why I sold my larger x800 as soon as the x900 came out. (I skipped the x880.)  So to clarify, I can see differences and find them significant enough to want the newer printer, but realize another's vision could be substantially different and they may not see differences OR find them significant...

So yes, YMMV!
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 03:41:35 pm by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10285
Rant 23
« Reply #119 on: October 07, 2009, 04:55:06 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
Well you are free to "guess" all you want .  

Speaking for myself, I have compared multiple prints side-by-side out of a variety of printers.  Which is exactly why I sold my x600 the second I could get my hands on an x800.  Also why I sold my larger x800 as soon as the x900 came out. (I skipped the x880.)  So to clarify, I can see differences and find them significant enough to want the newer printer, but realize another's vision could be substantially different and they may not see differences OR find them significant...

So yes, YMMV!

Jack,
Are you just playing politics? Have you looked at that sRGB purple flower from bjanes? It's massively out of gamut in proof colors on my terribly inferior monitor which is capable of only 6 bit color, according to you.

Let's get real. The argument in this thread is that it's the quality of the print which is the final arbiter. If my 6 bit CRT monitor can display colors that a professional Epson printer cannot, then there's something that doesn't quite gel, don't you think?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Up