Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: NEC 2490 vs. 2690  (Read 3410 times)
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« on: December 14, 2009, 03:55:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Considering the two, for ease of use of seeing, working with and adjusting photographic images, please advise of pros and cons;

1. Wide gamut - Some, e.g. Sein Reid, Karl Lang advise against WG.

2. 24.1" vs. 25.5" - Preference for ease of workability, for working on full images without much zooming etc.

3. Spectralview - Is stated to calibrate display itself. Needed? Advantages?

I use 17" Macbook Pro aluminum unibody.


Much thanks for advises.

Regards
Anders
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9316



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2009, 08:50:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Aside from the wide gamut issues (which are small but worth noting), both are comparable units other than size of course. You DO want the SpectraView II software to run either. If I had to pick, I’d go 2690.
Logged

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

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2009, 08:42:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Aside from the wide gamut issues (which are small but worth noting), both are comparable units other than size of course. You DO want the SpectraView II software to run either. If I had to pick, I’d go 2690.

Hi,

As implied I look for simple to work with my photos, as a photographer, not necessarily latest wiz tech. Thus I appreciate more 'whys' and from that perspective.

1) Reading what Reid and Karl states, I am not convinced that WG will be a benefit, rather it could be a disadvantage. Or?

2) I should have mention I have 28MP files. Thus... for ease of working is 24" sufficient or will that still require much zoom in and out, or would 25.5" or even 30" display help??

3) I use Spyder 3 for my MacBook Pro. Why should I need invest in SpectraView, what is actual benefit of SpectraView in real life?

Thanks!

Anders
Logged
claskin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2009, 08:46:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, what am I missing in the wide gamut issue?
I am looking at the NEC 30 inch and WAS considering the WG. Why should I reconsider?
Carl
Logged

Carl Laskin
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9316



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2009, 08:40:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anders_HK
As implied I look for simple to work with my photos, as a photographer, not necessarily latest wiz tech. Thus I appreciate more 'whys' and from that perspective.

IF most of your images fall within sRGB, you’re wasting bits, and money on a wide gamut display. Karl’s point is, if you have 16.7 million defined colors in 8-bit, in sRGB, you have more precision seeing and editing those colors than the same data on a wide gamut display.

Think of sRGB as a half inflated balloon with those 16.7 million colors on it. Now you blow up the balloon twice its size to represent Adobe RGB (1998). What happens to the space between those dots? They grow. The colorimetric distance between 122/123/156 and 122/124/156 in sRGB is closer than the distance of those values in Adobe RGB (1998).

Unless you funnel all the shots you take directly into sRGB, but rather shoot Raw and encode into a wider space, its pretty likely lots of your images will fall outside sRGB and being able to see that data to edit it is useful.
Logged

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

Posts: 66


« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2009, 03:25:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I asked this in the wrong forum:

If I open a wide-gamut (e.g. Prophoto RGB) image on a WG monitor (e.g. NEC LCD2690WUXi2-BK-SV) in Photoshop and select View|Proof Setup|Windows RGB (or Macintosh RGB), will it show what the image will look like on an sRGB monitor?

If so, it seems that one could use WG images for print and adjust them separately for the Web (sRGB).
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2009, 09:42:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
IF most of your images fall within sRGB, you’re wasting bits, and money on a wide gamut display. Karl’s point is, if you have 16.7 million defined colors in 8-bit, in sRGB, you have more precision seeing and editing those colors than the same data on a wide gamut display.

(1) Another point Karl apparent made was that Photoshop, computers and cables only communicated 8-bit. With the new unibody MacBook Pro's, Mini DisplayPort to DBI cable and CS4, will we be able to fully display the 16-bit colors from RAW files (as in being able to actually see that data on the WG display)?


Quote from: digitaldog
Think of sRGB as a half inflated balloon with those 16.7 million colors on it. Now you blow up the balloon twice its size to represent Adobe RGB (1998). What happens to the space between those dots? They grow. The colorimetric distance between 122/123/156 and 122/124/156 in sRGB is closer than the distance of those values in Adobe RGB (1998).

(2) Merely interpolation and rounding issues.


Quote from: digitaldog
Unless you funnel all the shots you take directly into sRGB, but rather shoot Raw and encode into a wider space, its pretty likely lots of your images will fall outside sRGB and being able to see that data to edit it is useful.

(3) Depending on the reply to  (1); If yes, then what we will see on the display could be likened to a brilliant slide, while what KJKAHN above states will be how we preview prints at less than WG (similar to a scan or print from a slide)??

Again thanks!  

Regards
Anders
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9316



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2009, 08:36:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anders_HK
(2) Merely interpolation and rounding issues.


The colorimetric distance and thus the deltaE between two subtle colors in sRGB are closer/loser than the same two colors in Adobe RGB (1998). If the deltaE goes higher, the ability to see and thus adjust those subtle colors becomes more difficult (think bride in white wedding dress).
Logged

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

Posts: 8028


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2009, 02:17:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Anders,

My understanding is that Display Port supports 10 bits but it will take a lot of time until that depth is fully supported in Photoshop and the related toolchain. Regarding the merits of WG I have not really any opinon. I have made a test, suggested by Jack Flesher, where I could see clear evidence colors that would be visible in Adobe RGB but lost on sRGB screen. Visually I'm not so sure. I'd suggest that for some of us pleasant color is more important than correct color (which tends to be boring), so small nuances may be less important.

Color calibration should take care of possible issues with "wide gamut" but precision may be lost. Karl Lang is probably right, techinically, but for landscape work striving for colorful images the small deviations induced by 8-bitness in a wide gamut world may not matter so much.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Anders_HK
(1) Another point Karl apparent made was that Photoshop, computers and cables only communicated 8-bit. With the new unibody MacBook Pro's, Mini DisplayPort to DBI cable and CS4, will we be able to fully display the 16-bit colors from RAW files (as in being able to actually see that data on the WG display)?


Again thanks!  

Regards
Anders
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad