Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: I'm gettin' One of those "Wide Gamut" LCDs  (Read 29471 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2009, 12:14:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Yup, think of the differing effects from just the video system in varying systems.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2009, 07:50:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Yup, think of the differing effects from just the video system in varying systems.

Okay...so here goes....I thought DVI was a digital link and there was no analog conversion going on between pc and display.  If the signal is pure uncompressed digital, there shouldn't be variability between display cards.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2009, 08:22:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
But wait, this is a review! Its not from Dell. It should be dismissed at this point alone.
 
Quote
The Dell U2410 features a dynamic contrast ratio (DCR) control, which boasts a spec of 80,000:1.

Great, and my print is what, 250:1? That makes soft proofing a bit difficult.

Andrew,
Please explain why a high contrast ratio in a monitor could be a disadvantage. Even if we assume that the 80,000:1 figure is a meaningless exaggeration within the context of practical ambient light conditions, more is better than less is it not?

Having recently acquired a 65", 12th generation Panasonic plasma TV with a claimed 'dynamic' CR of greater than 2 million to 1, I appreciate just how important it is to switch off all the lights in order to see the greater detail within the dark shadows.

In fact, switching off the lights is not sufficient because there are reflections from the light emitted by the TV off the off-white walls and ceiling. I feel that in order to appreciate the full CR capabilities of this set, I would need to paint my walls matte black and have matte black curtains over the windows.

The optional hood for Eizo monitors serves a similar purpose, does it not?
Logged
Neuffy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #23 on: December 16, 2009, 01:43:50 AM »
ReplyReply

A high contrast ratio is a disadvantage because color (among other aspects of images) is perceived differently depending on contrast. If I am editing an image, it is best that I edit on a display with a relatively close contrast ratio to the predicted print output.

I'm currently editing on a 400:1 display, with an 1100:1 display beside it. Quite simply, the adjustment for soft-proofing is too extreme on the higher-contrast display and I cannot predict as accurately what my prints will look like.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced that having an ultra-high contrast ratio would be a bad thing but for the fact that I personally cannot adjust to such variances quickly enough. That said, I am indeed the one who must use this system and so I therefore wish the contrast ratio shift from screen to print to be relatively mild.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #24 on: December 16, 2009, 07:28:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Neuffy
A high contrast ratio is a disadvantage because color (among other aspects of images) is perceived differently depending on contrast. If I am editing an image, it is best that I edit on a display with a relatively close contrast ratio to the predicted print output.

I'm currently editing on a 400:1 display, with an 1100:1 display beside it. Quite simply, the adjustment for soft-proofing is too extreme on the higher-contrast display and I cannot predict as accurately what my prints will look like.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced that having an ultra-high contrast ratio would be a bad thing but for the fact that I personally cannot adjust to such variances quickly enough. That said, I am indeed the one who must use this system and so I therefore wish the contrast ratio shift from screen to print to be relatively mild.

I think you might be confusing the capability of the monitor with the characteristics of the image. If the CR of the monitor is too high for a successful calibration, you can always reduce it. However, the reverse is not possible.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2009, 08:22:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
I think you might be confusing the capability of the monitor with the characteristics of the image. If the CR of the monitor is too high for a successful calibration, you can always reduce it. However, the reverse is not possible.

Ray, I don't think he was confusing anything. It's a pretty clear statement that high contrast is fine, except that it makes softproofing very difficult and in that I think he is right on the money. Let us recall that a primary objective of colour management is predictability from one output device to the other, and for most of us that means a predictably decent match between colour and contrast appearance on display relative to print - if the final output is print. As we well know, the DR of paper is relatvely low because it reflects light. Very high contrast displays falsify the impact of that circumstance and reduce the effectiveness of our colour-managed workflows. I've consistently found that the biggest challenge with colour management isn't the colour, but the luminosity, and resolve it I calibrate for a closer match to the paper, which means considerably warmer, less brightness and contrast than how these units usually come out of the box. It's worked very well for me, on the whole.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2009, 08:33:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please explain why a high contrast ratio in a monitor could be a disadvantage. Even if we assume that the 80,000:1 figure is a meaningless exaggeration within the context of practical ambient light conditions, more is better than less is it not?

For the same reason having a 12 stop scene range and a 6 stop capture device is problematic. Or a 10,000:1 display contrast ratio trying to soft proof a print that has a 250:1 ratio.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2009, 06:39:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark and Andrew,
I think you may have to explain this in more detail. It's not making much sense to me.

You seem to be implying that a monitor with a high contrast ratio will automatically bestow a high contrast upon the image being displayed, as though the contrast of the image is wholly dependent upon the CR spec of the monitor.

As I understand, this is only partly the case, but I'm always open to a persuasive argument. If an image has an inherently low contrast and a low dynamic range, it will appear as such on the monitor irrespective of whether the monitor has a high or a low contrast ratio, provided the monitor has a sufficiently high CR to accommodate the dynamic range of the image

However, the opposite is not the case. If a monitor has too low a contrast ratio, after adjusting brightness to the recommended level for calibration, say 100 nits, then blacks will likely not be black and images will tend to appear washed out.

If two monitors have the same maximum brightness level, the one with the higher contrast ratio would be the one preferred, all else being equal. It's better to have a contrast ratio which is unnecessarily high than one which is not high enough, just as it's better to have a camera with a high DR capability even though for some, or even most applications, that high DR might not be needed.

It is understood that all images have to be processed before printing in order to fit the gamut and the contrast within the limits of the print. Both camera and monitor generally have a much higher contrast and DR capability than ink and paper.

The inherent weakness of the LCD has always been the presence of a backlight which makes it difficult to achieve a good black. For this reason only the best and most expensive LCDs could match the qualities of a moderately priced CRT in which individual phosphors are able to be swithched off completely to render a truer black.

The difference between a monitor with a high CR and one with a low CR, but both having equal maximum brightness, is the ability to separate subtle shades of near black. If that capability of the monitor with the higher CR is of no practical use because of the ambient lighting conditions of your working environment, then no harm done. The issue is, does your monitor lend itself to accurate calibration?

Can either of you give me an example of a monitor which cannot be accurately calibrated because its real and actual contrast ratio is too high? It's understood that there's often a lot of hyperbole going on with CR figures for sales purposes and that one should not always believe such inflated figures.

Logged
DaveCollins
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #28 on: December 16, 2009, 07:07:18 PM »
ReplyReply

You might what to check out the thread Thread on Dell U2410 .

Without repeating this long thread concerning this monitor, I purchased the monitor and thought it was junk and just mailed it back to Dell. See the thread referenced above for more details and a fairly detailed discussion of alternatives.
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 16, 2009, 07:22:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DaveCollins
You might what to check out the thread Thread on Dell U2410 .

Without repeating this long thread concerning this monitor, I purchased the monitor and thought it was junk and just mailed it back to Dell. See the thread referenced above for more details and a fairly detailed discussion of alternatives.

I saw that, but....well....it arrived today. The color didn't look very good out of the box.  After using the custom color settings and calibrating, it is very good, to my subjective eyes.  If it has a flaw, it is that it is too bright.  I am not sure how to modify my calibration routine to tone it down a bit. (lower gamma setting, perhaps?)  On the other hand, it is gloriously bright and contrasty.  Compared to my old Dell 2007WFP, it is a revelation.  With the two adjacent to one another, the old one looks really dim and perhaps a bit cooler.  I haven't yet figured out how to use two different color profiles, one for each monitor.

I'll need to spend more time with it before I decide if it has any major flaws that I can't live with, but for now, I am content.

The on-screen menu system is far superior to others I have used.  

...And on another note, I have my old 20" widescreen LCD configured in portrait mode (1050 x 1600).  The vertical format is very nice for web work.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2009, 07:48:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fike
If it has a flaw, it is that it is too bright.  ...................... it is gloriously bright and contrasty.

This is exactly the condition which would make me VERY nervous if the end product of my photographic output were a print - even on the highest DR papers we now have.

Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 16, 2009, 08:07:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
This is exactly the condition which would make me VERY nervous if the end product of my photographic output were a print - even on the highest DR papers we now have.

I was just messing with some matte paper soft proofing.  It looks good.  I am printing to matte paper, so it is difficult to be perfect because of the effects of texture.

Hooray!!!  This is my 500th post. It has only taken me 5 years to get 500 posts.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 08:08:36 PM by fike » Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 16, 2009, 08:09:49 PM »
ReplyReply

When you say it looks good, do you mean what you see on the print with the matte paper looks faithful to what you see on the display? That's the critical issue of course. With matte paper and its lower DR, one needs to be especially careful about display brightness and contrast.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 16, 2009, 09:03:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
When you say it looks good, do you mean what you see on the print with the matte paper looks faithful to what you see on the display? That's the critical issue of course. With matte paper and its lower DR, one needs to be especially careful about display brightness and contrast.

Yes, the color balance, highlights, and shadows are faithful between the soft-proof and the paper version.  I closely evaluated (subjectively of course) the highlights and shadows, considering exactly where the shadows finally dissolve fully into black and the last detail I can find. I did the same with snowy white highlights.  I haven't done close color work with it yet, but the winter brown of tree bark can be difficult to reproduce in a neutral way.  The monitor and the paper both reproduce identical and neutral browns.  The print I was working with is here: http://www.trailpixie.net/general/pointy_knob_tra_1.htm .  

So I would chalk-up one satisfied U2410 buyer, though I may not be as OCD as my other photographer/printer brethren, though don't ask my wife about my OCD photographic tendencies.  I carry hyperfocal depth of field charts in my photo bag, and that is just too much for her.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2009, 09:41:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Glad you got it all working well for you. The second shot is a nice one.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 16, 2009, 09:53:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Mark and Andrew,
I think you may have to explain this in more detail. It's not making much sense to me.

You seem to be implying that a monitor with a high contrast ratio will automatically bestow a high contrast upon the image being displayed, as though the contrast of the image is wholly dependent upon the CR spec of the monitor.

As I understand, this is only partly the case, but I'm always open to a persuasive argument. If an image has an inherently low contrast and a low dynamic range, it will appear as such on the monitor irrespective of whether the monitor has a high or a low contrast ratio, provided the monitor has a sufficiently high CR to accommodate the dynamic range of the image

However, the opposite is not the case. If a monitor has too low a contrast ratio, after adjusting brightness to the recommended level for calibration, say 100 nits, then blacks will likely not be black and images will tend to appear washed out.

If two monitors have the same maximum brightness level, the one with the higher contrast ratio would be the one preferred, all else being equal. It's better to have a contrast ratio which is unnecessarily high than one which is not high enough, just as it's better to have a camera with a high DR capability even though for some, or even most applications, that high DR might not be needed.

It is understood that all images have to be processed before printing in order to fit the gamut and the contrast within the limits of the print. Both camera and monitor generally have a much higher contrast and DR capability than ink and paper.

The inherent weakness of the LCD has always been the presence of a backlight which makes it difficult to achieve a good black. For this reason only the best and most expensive LCDs could match the qualities of a moderately priced CRT in which individual phosphors are able to be swithched off completely to render a truer black.

The difference between a monitor with a high CR and one with a low CR, but both having equal maximum brightness, is the ability to separate subtle shades of near black. If that capability of the monitor with the higher CR is of no practical use because of the ambient lighting conditions of your working environment, then no harm done. The issue is, does your monitor lend itself to accurate calibration?

Can either of you give me an example of a monitor which cannot be accurately calibrated because its real and actual contrast ratio is too high? It's understood that there's often a lot of hyperbole going on with CR figures for sales purposes and that one should not always believe such inflated figures.

Ray, as far as I'm concerned, the basic point - especially with an LCD display - is to characterize the device white point, contrast curve and luminosity in a manner that provides the most reliabnle soft-proof of the final print. To do this properly, the display needs to be capable of handling the optimal settings. For example, as I'm printing mostly to Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper, I find that a white point in the range of 5500-5700, gamma of 2.2 or L* and luminance of no more than 110 cd/mm2 does the job nicely. My display has adequate bit depth to show the differentials in shadow detail that will appear on paper. The quality of black on my LaCie 321 is pretty good, and it's not the most expensive display in the neighbourhood, as you most likely know. The key issue in terms of differentiating shadow detail is whether the bit depth is adequate to provide a smooth tonal gray scale.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #36 on: December 16, 2009, 11:24:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Ray, as far as I'm concerned, the basic point - especially with an LCD display - is to characterize the device white point, contrast curve and luminosity in a manner that provides the most reliabnle soft-proof of the final print. To do this properly, the display needs to be capable of handling the optimal settings. For example, as I'm printing mostly to Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper, I find that a white point in the range of 5500-5700, gamma of 2.2 or L* and luminance of no more than 110 cd/mm2 does the job nicely. My display has adequate bit depth to show the differentials in shadow detail that will appear on paper. The quality of black on my LaCie 321 is pretty good, and it's not the most expensive display in the neighbourhood, as you most likely know. The key issue in terms of differentiating shadow detail is whether the bit depth is adequate to provide a smooth tonal gray scale.

Mark,
I can't disagree with that, but it doesn't answer the question as to why a monitor could have a CR which is too high for accurate calibration.

Generally it seems to be the case with a cheap display that the CR might seem adequate but the brightness is too high. When one turns down the brightness or luminance to the recommended level of 80-120 nits for calibration, the CR that originally seemed adequate at full brightness suddenly becomes inadequate and the images tend to lack shadow detail. Is this not the case?
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7405


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2009, 12:24:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Fike,

You are Happy? Problems solved?

:-)

Erik


Quote from: fike
Yes, the color balance, highlights, and shadows are faithful between the soft-proof and the paper version.  I closely evaluated (subjectively of course) the highlights and shadows, considering exactly where the shadows finally dissolve fully into black and the last detail I can find. I did the same with snowy white highlights.  I haven't done close color work with it yet, but the winter brown of tree bark can be difficult to reproduce in a neutral way.  The monitor and the paper both reproduce identical and neutral browns.  The print I was working with is here: http://www.trailpixie.net/general/pointy_knob_tra_1.htm .  

So I would chalk-up one satisfied U2410 buyer, though I may not be as OCD as my other photographer/printer brethren, though don't ask my wife about my OCD photographic tendencies.  I carry hyperfocal depth of field charts in my photo bag, and that is just too much for her.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 17, 2009, 07:30:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
When one turns down the brightness or luminance to the recommended level of 80-120 nits for calibration, the CR that originally seemed adequate at full brightness suddenly becomes inadequate and the images tend to lack shadow detail. Is this not the case?

No, from my experience it is not the case provided you use a display with enough bit depth to produce a smooth tonal ramp. And it need not cost the sky, but it won't be an el-cheapo either, unfortunately.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #39 on: December 18, 2009, 04:39:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
No, from my experience it is not the case provided you use a display with enough bit depth to produce a smooth tonal ramp. And it need not cost the sky, but it won't be an el-cheapo either, unfortunately.

Mark,
By enough bit depth, do you mean an 8 bit per channel output? Very cheap LCD monitors are usually 6 bit per channel. Are you saying, if the monitor is specified at 8 bit per channel output, which should be sufficient for 16.7m colors, the contrast ratio specification can be ignored?
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad