Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Monitor Gamut and Flash Galleries  (Read 1579 times)
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


WWW
« on: July 08, 2013, 09:11:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Would the color gamut of a 2009 iMac be considered wide gamut? I had assumed not. However, the color inaccuracies that are apparently typical of wide gamut monitors when viewing Adobe Flash galleries are what I seem to find with the monitor on this computer. I also have a wide gamut NEC monitor and the results are the same (when I have this monitor set to the Adobe RGB color space): oversaturated and shifted colors and an apparent contrast increase, very much like viewing an untagged image.

« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 09:50:34 AM by David Eichler » Logged

Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 387


« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2013, 09:59:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry I'm not a Mac user, but I do know that colour management doesn't work with most Flash content.  I believe that Flash can support colour managed from version 10 (in around 2010) but most Flash content doesn't use it. 
Logged
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2013, 10:08:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry I'm not a Mac user, but I do know that colour management doesn't work with most Flash content.  I believe that Flash can support colour managed from version 10 (in around 2010) but most Flash content doesn't use it. 

I understand that. However, it is my (perhaps faulty?) understanding that, with a "small" gamut monitor and a fully color managed Web browser such as Firefox, the lack of Flash color management would not be an issue, since the browser would effectively represent the image decently in sRGB. However, this is not the case with the 2009 iMac, which I had thought did not have gamut wider than sRGB.
Logged

Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 387


« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2013, 11:07:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I understand that. However, it is my (perhaps faulty?) understanding that, with a "small" gamut monitor and a fully color managed Web browser such as Firefox, the lack of Flash color management would not be an issue, since the browser would effectively represent the image decently in sRGB. However, this is not the case with the 2009 iMac, which I had thought did not have gamut wider than sRGB.
My understanding of the working (or non-working) of Flash is limited, but I think that's right.  In other words, if:
  • the monitor has standard gamut, i.e. close to sRGB
  • the image being rendered by Flash is sRGB
then it should look approximately right.  Only approximately, as standard-gamut monitors are rarely exactly sRGB. 
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2013, 11:26:56 AM »
ReplyReply

A lower gamut (sRGB-like) OR wide gamut that can emulate sRGB should work reasonably well with Flash which is or isn't color managed depending on way too many factors.
Logged

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

Posts: 342


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2013, 06:16:03 PM »
ReplyReply

So, with my NEC monitor, I have the option to change color space. I have calibrated my PA241 W monitor using native white point and the Adobe RGB (1998) color space, with an I1 Display Pro. However, when I switch to the sRGB color space on this monitor, with native white point, the colors look very cool, dull and understaturated. Does this have something to do with the profiling I performed at my working/editing color space setting.

So far, no real answer to my question about the iMac monitor. Also, are there more monitors out there now being used by the average viewer that, while not strictly wide gamut, are neverthless capable of displaying more than sRGB and thus causing problems with viewing Flash galleries?

« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 11:23:03 PM by David Eichler » Logged

Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1208



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2013, 11:28:21 PM »
ReplyReply

We don't know where the source of your Flash content is being generated from. My LG 27ea63v-p plays HDtv (Rec. 709 color space) content with no color management connected to my TWC cable box with color looking flawless especially skin tones. The LG is calibrated at the factory and quite well and accurate I might add.

See my capture of the HSN cable feed with my Pentax DSLR processed in ACR below and compare it to the YouTube link of a similar scene discussing the same product. The LG's color gamut is slightly less than sRGB as outlined in the Colorsync Utility screengrab below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nIgsLxGLUoY#t=355s

Your pinky skin you see in Flash was sourced from where?
Logged
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2013, 01:20:16 AM »
ReplyReply

We don't know where the source of your Flash content is being generated from. My LG 27ea63v-p plays HDtv (Rec. 709 color space) content with no color management connected to my TWC cable box with color looking flawless especially skin tones. The LG is calibrated at the factory and quite well and accurate I might add.

See my capture of the HSN cable feed with my Pentax DSLR processed in ACR below and compare it to the YouTube link of a similar scene discussing the same product. The LG's color gamut is slightly less than sRGB as outlined in the Colorsync Utility screengrab below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nIgsLxGLUoY#t=355s

Your pinky skin you see in Flash was sourced from where?

Here are several portraits on my blog: http://eichlerphoto.blogspot.com/2013/07/headshotportrait-photography.html Compare these with the same images in the portrait gallery on my portfolio website, www.eichlerphoto.com, and let me know if you see any difference, and what those differences are, if any. The portrait gallery is the last one. My portfolio website is Flash based (except for the mobile html mirror version).
Logged

Mac Mahon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102


« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2013, 04:54:33 AM »
ReplyReply

David
The photographs on your blog look fine to me:  Safari 6.0.5 on my profiled NEC PA241W.
It looks to me like the corresponding images on your portfolio are over saturated:  that suggests to me that the colour numbers on your gallery are being read as belonging to a smaller colour space (eg sRGB) than they were encoded (e.g. AdobeRGB) i.e. that the gallery s/w is not effectively (or at all) colour managed.
Is that what you thought?
Tim
Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1208



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2013, 09:42:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Here are several portraits on my blog: http://eichlerphoto.blogspot.com/2013/07/headshotportrait-photography.html Compare these with the same images in the portrait gallery on my portfolio website, www.eichlerphoto.com, and let me know if you see any difference, and what those differences are, if any. The portrait gallery is the last one. My portfolio website is Flash based (except for the mobile html mirror version).


I don't know which is suppose to look correct but there is a difference between your Flash driven portfolio (slightly green/less saturation) and what I see on your blog which I've confirmed has an embedded sRGB profile which my Safari 5.1.9 honors. Since Flash has no embedded profile (I'm assuming) I believe Safari assigns my monitor space instead of sRGB.

The concern I was referring to regarding source content is whether the video cameras are encoding to HDtv Rec. 709 (pretty much identical to sRGB) and whether editing was done in another space within the software and later converted or just left in the video camera space.

Since you're talking about your still images generated on your computer and uploaded to the web AND we know it was converted to sRGB and read by Safari that's the version we go by representing YOUR EDITS. The flash driven presentation version is not a good way to present your work if you're concerned about color changes potential clients will see on their possibly uncalibrated/unprofiled and "God Only Knows" color gamut displays.

Have you looked at the 3D gamut of your 2009 calibrated/profiled iMac to see how close it is to sRGB?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2013, 09:54:09 AM by Tim Lookingbill » Logged
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2013, 02:39:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know which is suppose to look correct but there is a difference between your Flash driven portfolio (slightly green/less saturation) and what I see on your blog which I've confirmed has an embedded sRGB profile which my Safari 5.1.9 honors. Since Flash has no embedded profile (I'm assuming) I believe Safari assigns my monitor space instead of sRGB.

The concern I was referring to regarding source content is whether the video cameras are encoding to HDtv Rec. 709 (pretty much identical to sRGB) and whether editing was done in another space within the software and later converted or just left in the video camera space.

Since you're talking about your still images generated on your computer and uploaded to the web AND we know it was converted to sRGB and read by Safari that's the version we go by representing YOUR EDITS. The flash driven presentation version is not a good way to present your work if you're concerned about color changes potential clients will see on their possibly uncalibrated/unprofiled and "God Only Knows" color gamut displays.

Have you looked at the 3D gamut of your 2009 calibrated/profiled iMac to see how close it is to sRGB?


Sorry, I assumed that all would assume the photos on the blog are the reference, since they are in html. And, yes, that is what I expected from the Flash gallery: no embedded profile. So, the question remains, what is that the vast majority of viewers will be seeing and how can I preview that with my wide-gamut monitor? I thought it was the case that the default for the main web browsers would be to convert to sRGB if they found untagged images. However, when I set my NEC monitor to sRGB viewing, the result is ugly, flat and dull, which I don't understand.

When I view the image in the Flash gallery, I do not see what you appear to be seeing. I see pinker skin tones and higher overall saturation and contrast than any of the versions you show and the overall color balance is not a greenish bias, as with your example. I see an overall warmer bias when viewing the flash gallery.

I will look at the 3d gamut for the iMac. Don't know where to find it though. I know the xRite software will show a 3d gamut of the monitor, but does not show relative to a particular color space? Will have a look and see.
Logged

Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1208



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2013, 03:38:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, I assumed that all would assume the photos on the blog are the reference, since they are in html. And, yes, that is what I expected from the Flash gallery: no embedded profile. So, the question remains, what is that the vast majority of viewers will be seeing and how can I preview that with my wide-gamut monitor? I thought it was the case that the default for the main web browsers would be to convert to sRGB if they found untagged images. However, when I set my NEC monitor to sRGB viewing, the result is ugly, flat and dull, which I don't understand.

When I view the image in the Flash gallery, I do not see what you appear to be seeing. I see pinker skin tones and higher overall saturation and contrast than any of the versions you show and the overall color balance is not a greenish bias, as with your example. I see an overall warmer bias when viewing the flash gallery.

I will look at the 3d gamut for the iMac. Don't know where to find it though. I know the xRite software will show a 3d gamut of the monitor, but does not show relative to a particular color space? Will have a look and see.

Web color is a mixed bag with regard to what others see who don't view in the same color defined and controlled environment of your calibrated & color managed displays for both the iMac & NEC. Nothing you can do about it.

The reason for the greenish less saturated look of the untagged Flash version of the portrait is because my LG monitor profile is automatically assigned to the screengrab which happens in Safari when there's no embedded profile. Nothing I can do about it. That doesn't mean others with different displays will see the exact same thing.

As for the rendering differences of NEC's sRGB setting that's for your eyes only to give you some indication what others with sRGB displays will see which as you can see from my Colorsync Utility 3D gamut of the LG27" is less than sRGB as one example of the level of differences. My Dell 2209WA is slightly greater than sRGB by the same degree which will make your portrait a bit more pinkish and saturated.

Nothing you can do about it.

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

Ad
Ad
Ad