justechn writes "I recently had the opportunity to see, first hand, HP's new 30-bit, 1 billion color LCD display. I have to say I am impressed. Not only is the HP Dreamcolor LP2480zx capable of displaying so much more than standard LCDs, but it considered a Color Critical display. This means if you work with videos or photos you can be guaranteed that what you see is what it is supposed to look like. With 6 built-in color spaces (NTSC, SMPTE, sRGB, Rec. 709, Adobe RGB and DCI), you can easily switch to the one that best suits your applications and process. At $3,499, it is too expensive to be a consumer level LCD, but compared to other Color Critical displays (which can cost as much as $15,000 and $25,000) this is a real bargain. This display was a joint venture between HP and DreamWorks animation. When I talked to the executives of DreamWorks, they were very excited about this display because it solved a huge problem for them."
Why utterly useless? Bluray disks already show banding in some gradients. 16-bit would eliminate that. Wider gamut for movies would give more room for creativity. I don't think it's quite "utterly" useless. Just mostly useless - today.
Does it use the same number of pixels per channel? I hope not. Here's why: the human eye is not equally sensitive to each of the three primary colors; we can see quite a lot finer differences in green than in blue (red comes between the two extremes). To show this, create a simple monochromatic stepped gradient image in green and another in blue. Now eyeball them using a viewer that doesn't do fancy gamma correction; on a 24bpp display you should be able to see the steps on the green image (assuming normal color vision) but you'll have real problems doing that with the blue image.
Because to not do so is problematic for the computer which is controlling it. There's also the issue that what we REALLY see the best is greys. If you have a different number of bits per channel, you'll run in to the problem of not being able to do truly neutral greys (as was a problem in 16-bit 5-6-5 colour mode). Because of our grey perception, there's already been 10-bit black and white medical displays out there. Finally, it would be silly to artificially cripple the display.
LCDs function by filtering light through red, blue and green filters, and then blocking part or all of the light to specific sub pixels. So if you can have 1024 driving levels for one sub pixel, you can have it for all of them. No reason to restrict the pixels that happen to have red and blue filters instead of green.
So this display is 10-bits per primary colour channels, giving 1024 steps for grey, 1,073,741,824 total possible different colours.
There's also the issue that what we REALLY see the best is greys.
Yes and no. We *DO* have very strong sensitivity to greys. But that mostly happens in our peripheral vision. Our foveolla is richer in cones, rather than rods and thus has very big colour sensitivity, but sucks at distinguishing very dark levels of grey.
This can easily be illustrated when looking at the sky, at night, when there are no cloud and no light pollution from a nearby big city : you see a lot of stars (when getting a global picture with all your visual field including peripheral vision) but if you try to look at some region in detail, some star seem to disappear (you're looking it with the high resolution / high color / but bad grey region of your retina), and then are visible again if you stop looking at them.
There's no such thing as a single resolution or a single sensitivity to colours/greys in eyes. More likely those parameters depends on the region of the retina considered.
Because of our grey perception, there's already been 10-bit black and white medical displays out there.
Well... not exactly. Those displays are grey, simply because most of the picture produced in radiology are, indeed, grey scale. Thankfully we happen to have good sensitivity to grey contrasts so doctors in radiology can read them (with the help of monitors that have a wide enough dynamic range of light intensity and enough steps in between to mimic the quality of actual radiology films).
On the other hand, you could imagine obtain similar visibility to fine details by using pseudo colours. The problem is that no doctor is used to to analyse rainbow coloured pictures (...I tend to be the only one liking pseudo colour scales...) and if you move the window around (the mapping of data to intensity of grey) colours completely shift around (dark region may have been cyan with one window and orange with another), whereas with a grey scale darker region are always darker grey than lighter regions.
So the reasons are not only because of compatibility with our retina, but even more so because of practical considerations (looks like the original medium, simpler to manipulate, etc...)
Pseudo colours on the hand may be very popular in engineering printout because, well, once it's printed, it's hard to play with a display window, so you better find a way to cram as much possible information even on a medium that offers not such a big dynamic range of shades.
Note that then you have scale problems, which are happily abused for example by charlatans trying to sell snake oil to lower the radiation of your cell phone : the picture with snake oil looks much less redder than the one with snake oil. But that's because the pseudo colour mapping is different between the two pictures. Not because putting a sticker on the back of the phone suddenly stops it from frying your brain.
If you look at the pictures on your current monitor, it's impossible for you to tell the difference.
This is patently untrue. I have a HD tv in my living room, but an old-fashioned black and white tv in my bedroom. I didn't want to spring for a new tv in the bedroom, so I set up my video camera in front of the HD tv and hooked it up to the b&w bedroom tv. The result? Stunning full-color 1080p picture.
Better than CRT, actually. At least under certain conditions. Matrix-style displays have some big inherent advantages over scanning phosphor technology, such as crisp, precise, flicker-free display.
Meanwhile, there have been "deep color" displays like this capable of more than 24-bit color for a while. Use of LED backlights give them a much wider color gamut than phosphors are capable of.
The main failings of current LCD technology fall into two categories:
First, LCDs block light imperfectly, so you get pot
Incidentally, for those who don't understand the bit about the "wide color gamut" enabled by LEDs, color spaces (such as the Adobe RGB, sRGB, NTSC, and so on spaces mentioned in the summary/article) are defined by three primary colors. Nothing new there. The tricky bit is that the specifications define these three primary colors in terms of a precise frequency of light. The only light source that comes close are tuned lasers. Consequently, that LCD monitor sitting on your desk (or lap), probably backlit b
You can get LCDs that have better colour, both in terms of gamut and in terms of quality, than a CRT today. Problem is you don't get them in the bargain bin. The NEC LCD2690WUXi is quite superior to even professional CRTs in my opinion (and I happen to have a LaCie Electron22Blue IV to compare it to). The gamut is no question superior, you can measure that, but the subject colour quality is just great too. Thing it it's over $1000. Cheapest you can probably find a "better than CRT" panel is about $700 for a
It might be better to avoid stories from people (justechn, roland p, etc) that just link to their websites. Especially those that require registration.
Slashdot should not be giving these guys (and their like) the free publicity that they figure they deserve.
The website does not require registration. It just defaults to that page when it is overloaded. I apologize about my website going down. It looks like I got slashdotted. I am working on it.
Don't have time to find all of the references but most of the human race cannot distinguish that many colors, except possible the few who have the extra color rod in their eyes. Most of us cannot see more than about 1 million colors, I believe.
CIELAB colour space codes colours as L (lightness) with a 0 - 100 range, and a/b (red-green / yellow-blue) each with about a +/- 100 range for physically realizeable colours. A pair of colours which are just distinguishable are a unit apart, so we can distinguish very roughly 100 * 100 * 100 colours, or a million.
However those are surface reflectances under a single illuminant. In a natural scene, your eye is adapting constantly as you look around. Your iris changes size, your retina changes sensitivity, and so on. The range of lightnesses in a natural scene is up to about 10 billion to 1 if you compare direct sunlight to deep shadow. You can distinguish a million colours at each of these points of adaptation.
If you want a display that can show a full range of dark colours and a full range of light colours, you need more than a million to 1.
The range of lightnesses in a natural scene is up to about 10 billion to 1 if you compare direct sunlight to deep shadow. You can distinguish a million colours at each of these points of adaptation.
While true, this overlooks the fact that there will be an absolutely HUGE number of hues at one level of illumination that do not produce different optical characteristics from different hues at different levels of illumination. This sort of thing _drastically_ reduces the color space required for a full set of
An LED-backlit 24-inch widescreen monitor, the DreamColor features 30-bit imaging with a over billion colors. That's 64 times the standard LCD color gamut
No it isn't. Gamut is something like how far apart the most different colors it can show are, and depends on what colors the actual pixel elements are. The number of bits just determines how close together the most similar colors it can show are.
This is really just hype more than anything. Remember that article about like 50% of people with HDTVs think they are viewing in HD but it turns out they're not (b/c of having wrong cables, etc)? It's the same with colors--the eyes just can't distinguish between a display with 10 million colors and a billion colors. Personally I think you're wasting your money buying this thing. But at the very least, maybe the price of "inferior" monitors will go down if this goes mainstream, so I shouldn't complain.
It's not the 1B colors that matter, but the gamut. Do you agree there are colors that most monitors can't show but do exist in real life? Think of neon greens, bright magentas, etc. This monitor, covering the Adobe RGB gamut, displays colors other monitors simply can't. That may not matter to you, but it does to photographers.
It's the same with colors--the eyes just can't distinguish between a display with 10 million colors and a billion colors. Personally I think you're wasting your money buying this thing. But at the very least, maybe the price of "inferior" monitors will go down if this goes mainstream, so I shouldn't complain.
I'm amazed at how uninformed you and most of the posters seem to be. You can prove that the eye can distinguish, VERY EASILY, between 16.7 million and 1 billion colors, and you can do it right now.
1) Open photoshop.
2) Make a gradient from 0-0-0 RGB to 255-0-0 RGB. This covers every possible variation of the red channel in a 16.7 million color space. Draw the gradient across your whole screen.
3) Look at the color banding and say, "Oh, I guess I can see why 30 bit color would be noticeable."
Did you know? Many LCD monitors, even if they claim to, don't actually support 24-bit color!
If you do this test and can see prominent color banding, then either you're using a crappy monitor or you have superhuman color vision. I performed this test on my Dell 2405FPW, and I see absolutely no color banding in red or blue and only the slightest, itty-bittiest hint of it in green.
I don't believe for a second that the average person could see color banding in this test at all, let alone easily.
True. But stick most people watching American Idol in front of a 52" screen and they'll be too enthralled by the size and brightness to notice the image/video quality. If they're willing to put up with that kind of programming, you can't expect them to be overly picky about AV quality. It's not called the idiot box for nothing, even if it would be more aptly named the idiot panel these days.
Remember - "bigger is better" for most people. I can hardly watch typical HDTV due to how hard they stomp on the video for compression, as the macro blocking is too distracting to me (web content tends to be better, as most web producers actually CARE about that kind of thing). At least SDTV tends to be too soft of a picture to have bad macro blocking, and they don't need to compress it has hard in the first place to send it down the tubes.
I bought a 50" plasma some years ago, and was showing a few of my friends SDTV channels versus HDTV channels. Now, this was a very high-end plasma, properly calibrated, showing some of the prettiest content on Discovery HD, so we are talking a KICK YOU IN THE FACE improvement that anybody with half a brain should have been able to appreciate.
One was suitably impressed. The second said that she could kind of see a difference, but didn't really care. The third said she couldn't even tell.
I suspect these are the same people that buy a nice 24" LCD and then run it in 800x600 resolution. Sadly, I have seen this. After fixing it, I have then seen these same people maintain that aside from the aspect ratio change, they couldn't tell the difference.
Evidently a lot of people desperately need glasses and have absolutely no idea how bad their vision is. The weird part is that even when this is pointed out to them -- "Wait, you seriously can't tell the difference between 800x600 and 1920x1200? Please, for the love of Zeus get your eyes checked!" -- they generally act completely nonplussed and never bother to see an optometrist. I just don't get it. Why do so many people not care about having sharp eyesight?
Why do so many people not care about having sharp eyesight?
I was one of those people, so I'll try to answer this for you.
Frankly, most daily tasks don't require good eyesight. I don't even bother wearing my glasses unless I'm reading signs or driving or something. And my level of eyesight actually requires correction; a lot of people have less-than-perfect eyesight that's still legal to drive with.
When I go to the movie theater or watch a DVD on a big screen or something (if I'm watching on my laptop, I can already see every pixel at a comfortable viewing distance), I do put on my glasses so I can enjoy the sharpness (if it's that sort of movie; some movies are better without being pixel-perfect sharp).
However, for everyday life, it provides marginal benefit. And corrective lenses inevitably introduce other kinds of distortion, which I find give me a headache. Certainly if I want to make sure something is straight and level, I take off my glasses, because I can't trust my lenses to match what my brain has been wired over the years to perceive as straight.
Is "considered color critical" anything other than meaningless hype? Is there a graphics card that can feed it with more than 24bits of color information, and any software that works with that combination? More importantly, what's the resolution of the display, how black is it's black, and is it's colour gamut any larger than a normal monitor?
I'd need a lot more information before I consider this to be a competitor to the SWOP certified 2560x1600 pixel screen I'm using now.
The monitor is designed to be color calibrated with color printers and scanners. We had some art friends who used a system like this. One time, they discovered there was a market for their paintings as prints rather than as originals, so they decided to set up their own print shop.
However, the problem was making sure the scanned input matched what was on the screen and what was printed out. So they bought a system calibrator which had a photosensor that attached to the screen. You basically scanned in a pre-
They make it sound like out-of-the-box you're going to get the best image possible. But that's not the case. The color profile for the monitor needs to be adjusted to match reality (using something like ColorVision's Spyder2)before you can make that claim. There's no point in having billions of colors if they're all wrong.
Well, first they are talking about movies here, so I'd think "print" means a film print for a theater release in this context. The problem you have with printing and especially film printing is that the color gamuts of various printing methods are different from and only partially overlapping with the gamuts of regular monitors. That is, the monitor can show colors that the print can't show, and vice versa.
What they did with this displays is build a device that has a very wide gamut, so it can cover the full
This display might work for reliable color matching, but not for the reasons supplied.
The main problem with getting color on one object, say a display monitor, to look exactly the same as on another object, say a magazine page, is mostly the problem of gamma [wikipedia.org], a nonlinear contrast range in different light levels. And, of course, the differing illumination of the two objects in different places, which is the actual source of the possible range of colors that can be seen coming from the object.
The human eye is very sensitive to different spectral content of light detected coming from objects. Sunlight starts out with different colors than the light shining on a display monitor or generated by the display. The magazine in the sunlight filters a range of colors through its ink, then reflecting off the paper (which is itself some color, even if that color is "close" to "white"), back through the ink, and to the eye. The display monitor's light starts out a different color from the sunlight, then is filtered through and reflected from very different materials than ink and paper. By the time the light reaches the eye from each object, they're very different. And each instance is a little different, owing to manufacturing quality variations.
And then gamma has to be factored in, which tends to dominate the color content reaching the eye. The gamma is a kind of nonlinear "contrast" (as in a TV control) in different frequencies, varying as the intensity of the same illumination is increased. But even that illumination generally isn't just the same color at all intensities, because it's emitted from some manufactured material that has its own gamma (or emission equivalent) and "color temperature [wikipedia.org]" bias. Which is in turn different from sunlight, which is more stable in its source color range than most manufactured materials (except lasers, a completely different kind of illumination that looks completely different from sunlight).
Color calibration works best when there's a feedback loop of the data passed between different output objects (like paper/ink and a display monitor), linked by a video sensor (that has its own color calibration problems). It's an extremely hard problem. When I was a member of the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG, who created the image file format - I helped with the color spaces spec), we spent a lot of time getting it close enough for commercial use. But we knew enough to tell that "solving" the problem 100% was not going to work. And even now, almost two decades later, it's still not solved. But every few years new tech makes it affordable for industries to add another "9" to what was once 99.999% accurate. The 30 bit gamut [wikipedia.org] of this display monitor means that it doesn't constrain the range of colors as much as have old technologies. But the calibration requries sophisticated processes and software to automate them, as well as a method for comparing to actual outputs. And it still can't account for variances in manufacturing the target output media.
For Hollywood, this problem might be close to solved, though. Because movies are moving to digital projection, which can be manufactured to high precision of consistency in materials and their interaction with light, and from the same parts as the production display monitors. If all the theaters used the same DLP chips, LEDs and image surfaces (or to the precisely same standard specs) for their projectors as the studios did for all their display monitors and as all people did for their home TVs, then colors would be pretty close to identical in all those environments (except for that variable ambient lighting). These display monitors might flexibly replicate a lot of different environments to match, but the matched objects are still highly variable. For $3500, they better deliver something good.
To date, I have not seen any LCD or Plasma monitor that can perform as well as certain projection D-ILAs in terms of the combination of luminance ranges, good black levels, contrast ratios, gamma accuracy, viewing angle, and coverage of the Rec. 709 gamut. But don't take my word for it, here [plasmadisp...lition.org] the Plasma Display coalition admits they can only cover 80% of Rec. 709 with their best displays, with many more falling in the 75% department.
From a digital television perspective I am much more interested in monitor gamut effectively covering the Rec. 709 color space, because that is all I can put on TV. Sure, it's OK to have extended gamut outside Rec. 709, but if you can't actually cover all of Rec. 709 gamut I don't care if you cover color outside that space. Similarly, I'm sure digital cinema people want the DCI gamut covered well first before having coverage outside that gamut.
On the LCD side, the production lines are changing so rapidly that two versions of the same type of panel from different months will have different results. I have seen a $300 Dell LCD computer monitor perform better than some professional television LCD displays that are priced 10 times as much.
My suggestion is to measure displays yourself, and ignore marketing literature. Of course, you need a good broadcast engineering lab to do that, not all networks have such a thing...
If you want to know what you need in a good monitor, see the EBU User requirements for Video Monitors [www.ebu.ch]. SMPTE is working on a set of recommendations as well.
I'm hoping that OLED displays will come to the rescue, but it will take a while for them to come up to needed sizes and maturity.
Are there any video cards that support the extra colors, or is there something else where the display can more accurately represent the color based on color space without actually changing the bits per channel sent from the video card? I th ink Matrox had a 30 bit video card at one point...
And I, as a man, fear anything and anyone that can handle more than the 16 colors I can differentiate and all the marital skirmished derived from that fact.
Users spending thirty five hundred dollars on a computer monitor will know what to use. Excepting the obnoxious rich guys, the target audience of this is primarily advertising businesses and high-end video/photography where color space and bit depth is actually important.
GIMMEH (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GIMMEH (Score:5, Funny)
I do. My collection of Roseanne Barr b3av3r shots!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Link? (Score:2)
Re:Link? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Here's a proper link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here's a proper link (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Of course it does (Score:5, Informative)
LCDs function by filtering light through red, blue and green filters, and then blocking part or all of the light to specific sub pixels. So if you can have 1024 driving levels for one sub pixel, you can have it for all of them. No reason to restrict the pixels that happen to have red and blue filters instead of green.
So this display is 10-bits per primary colour channels, giving 1024 steps for grey, 1,073,741,824 total possible different colours.
Parent
Gray sensitivity vs. Medical Displays (Score:5, Informative)
We *DO* have very strong sensitivity to greys. But that mostly happens in our peripheral vision. Our foveolla is richer in cones, rather than rods and thus has very big colour sensitivity, but sucks at distinguishing very dark levels of grey.
This can easily be illustrated when looking at the sky, at night, when there are no cloud and no light pollution from a nearby big city : you see a lot of stars (when getting a global picture with all your visual field including peripheral vision) but if you try to look at some region in detail, some star seem to disappear (you're looking it with the high resolution / high color / but bad grey region of your retina), and then are visible again if you stop looking at them.
There's no such thing as a single resolution or a single sensitivity to colours/greys in eyes. More likely those parameters depends on the region of the retina considered.
On the other hand, you could imagine obtain similar visibility to fine details by using pseudo colours. The problem is that no doctor is used to to analyse rainbow coloured pictures (...I tend to be the only one liking pseudo colour scales...) and if you move the window around (the mapping of data to intensity of grey) colours completely shift around (dark region may have been cyan with one window and orange with another), whereas with a grey scale darker region are always darker grey than lighter regions.
So the reasons are not only because of compatibility with our retina, but even more so because of practical considerations (looks like the original medium, simpler to manipulate, etc...)
Pseudo colours on the hand may be very popular in engineering printout because, well, once it's printed, it's hard to play with a display window, so you better find a way to cram as much possible information even on a medium that offers not such a big dynamic range of shades.
Note that then you have scale problems, which are happily abused for example by charlatans trying to sell snake oil to lower the radiation of your cell phone : the picture with snake oil looks much less redder than the one with snake oil. But that's because the pseudo colour mapping is different between the two pictures. Not because putting a sticker on the back of the phone suddenly stops it from frying your brain.
Parent
Meh (Score:5, Funny)
It doesn't look like anything special to me. I guess I don't need to upgrade my current monitor.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Meh (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Meh (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Matrix-style displays have some big inherent advantages over scanning phosphor technology, such as crisp, precise, flicker-free display.
Meanwhile, there have been "deep color" displays like this capable of more than 24-bit color for a while. Use of LED backlights give them a much wider color gamut than phosphors are capable of.
The main failings of current LCD technology fall into two categories:
First, LCDs block light imperfectly, so you get pot
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The tricky bit is that the specifications define these three primary colors in terms of a precise frequency of light. The only light source that comes close are tuned lasers. Consequently, that LCD monitor sitting on your desk (or lap), probably backlit b
Waaaaay better than CRTs (Score:3, Informative)
Cheapest you can probably find a "better than CRT" panel is about $700 for a
Registration (Score:5, Insightful)
It might be better to avoid stories from people (justechn, roland p, etc) that just link to their websites. Especially those that require registration.
Slashdot should not be giving these guys (and their like) the free publicity that they figure they deserve.
Re:Registration (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Registration (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Registration (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Dithering (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a bit of overkill (Score:4, Informative)
Cool technology, though.
Re:Just a bit of overkill (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a very slightly gray-black, but silver-print-face-of-the-half-dome black.
Parent
Re:Just a bit of overkill (Score:5, Informative)
That's not quite right.
CIELAB colour space codes colours as L (lightness) with a 0 - 100 range, and a/b (red-green / yellow-blue) each with about a +/- 100 range for physically realizeable colours. A pair of colours which are just distinguishable are a unit apart, so we can distinguish very roughly 100 * 100 * 100 colours, or a million.
However those are surface reflectances under a single illuminant. In a natural scene, your eye is adapting constantly as you look around. Your iris changes size, your retina changes sensitivity, and so on. The range of lightnesses in a natural scene is up to about 10 billion to 1 if you compare direct sunlight to deep shadow. You can distinguish a million colours at each of these points of adaptation.
If you want a display that can show a full range of dark colours and a full range of light colours, you need more than a million to 1.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While true, this overlooks the fact that there will be an absolutely HUGE number of hues at one level of illumination that do not produce different optical characteristics from different hues at different levels of illumination. This sort of thing _drastically_ reduces the color space required for a full set of
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, really? (Score:5, Informative)
Hype (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hype (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Open photoshop.
2) Make a gradient from 0-0-0 RGB to 255-0-0 RGB. This covers every possible variation of the red channel in a 16.7 million color space. Draw the gradient across your whole screen.
3) Look at the color banding and say, "Oh, I guess I can see why 30 bit color would be noticeable."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you do this test and can see prominent color banding, then either you're using a crappy monitor or you have superhuman color vision. I performed this test on my Dell 2405FPW, and I see absolutely no color banding in red or blue and only the slightest, itty-bittiest hint of it in green.
I don't believe for a second that the average person could see color banding in this test at all, let alone easily.
Re:Hype (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember - "bigger is better" for most people. I can hardly watch typical HDTV due to how hard they stomp on the video for compression, as the macro blocking is too distracting to me (web content tends to be better, as most web producers actually CARE about that kind of thing). At least SDTV tends to be too soft of a picture to have bad macro blocking, and they don't need to compress it has hard in the first place to send it down the tubes.
Parent
Re:Hype (Score:5, Interesting)
One was suitably impressed. The second said that she could kind of see a difference, but didn't really care. The third said she couldn't even tell.
I suspect these are the same people that buy a nice 24" LCD and then run it in 800x600 resolution. Sadly, I have seen this. After fixing it, I have then seen these same people maintain that aside from the aspect ratio change, they couldn't tell the difference.
Evidently a lot of people desperately need glasses and have absolutely no idea how bad their vision is. The weird part is that even when this is pointed out to them -- "Wait, you seriously can't tell the difference between 800x600 and 1920x1200? Please, for the love of Zeus get your eyes checked!" -- they generally act completely nonplussed and never bother to see an optometrist. I just don't get it. Why do so many people not care about having sharp eyesight?
Parent
Re:Hype (Score:5, Informative)
Frankly, most daily tasks don't require good eyesight. I don't even bother wearing my glasses unless I'm reading signs or driving or something. And my level of eyesight actually requires correction; a lot of people have less-than-perfect eyesight that's still legal to drive with.
When I go to the movie theater or watch a DVD on a big screen or something (if I'm watching on my laptop, I can already see every pixel at a comfortable viewing distance), I do put on my glasses so I can enjoy the sharpness (if it's that sort of movie; some movies are better without being pixel-perfect sharp).
However, for everyday life, it provides marginal benefit. And corrective lenses inevitably introduce other kinds of distortion, which I find give me a headache. Certainly if I want to make sure something is straight and level, I take off my glasses, because I can't trust my lenses to match what my brain has been wired over the years to perceive as straight.
Parent
"considered color critical"? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd need a lot more information before I consider this to be a competitor to the SWOP certified 2560x1600 pixel screen I'm using now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We had some art friends who used a system like this. One time, they discovered there was a market for their paintings as prints rather than as originals, so they decided to set up their own print shop.
However, the problem was making sure the scanned input matched what was on the screen and what was printed out. So they bought a system calibrator which had a photosensor that attached to the screen. You basically scanned in a pre-
Confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
1 billion colors! (Score:3, Funny)
"Guaranteed" to look like print? (Score:3, Insightful)
Print reflects light, montors emit light. You can get close-ish, but that's about it.
All in all, if you still want acurate color, you'll still need to do a print/press check.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem you have with printing and especially film printing is that the color gamuts of various printing methods are different from and only partially overlapping with the gamuts of regular monitors. That is, the monitor can show colors that the print can't show, and vice versa.
What they did with this displays is build a device that has a very wide gamut, so it can cover the full
Color Calibration is Not So Simple (Score:5, Informative)
The main problem with getting color on one object, say a display monitor, to look exactly the same as on another object, say a magazine page, is mostly the problem of gamma [wikipedia.org], a nonlinear contrast range in different light levels. And, of course, the differing illumination of the two objects in different places, which is the actual source of the possible range of colors that can be seen coming from the object.
The human eye is very sensitive to different spectral content of light detected coming from objects. Sunlight starts out with different colors than the light shining on a display monitor or generated by the display. The magazine in the sunlight filters a range of colors through its ink, then reflecting off the paper (which is itself some color, even if that color is "close" to "white"), back through the ink, and to the eye. The display monitor's light starts out a different color from the sunlight, then is filtered through and reflected from very different materials than ink and paper. By the time the light reaches the eye from each object, they're very different. And each instance is a little different, owing to manufacturing quality variations.
And then gamma has to be factored in, which tends to dominate the color content reaching the eye. The gamma is a kind of nonlinear "contrast" (as in a TV control) in different frequencies, varying as the intensity of the same illumination is increased. But even that illumination generally isn't just the same color at all intensities, because it's emitted from some manufactured material that has its own gamma (or emission equivalent) and "color temperature [wikipedia.org]" bias. Which is in turn different from sunlight, which is more stable in its source color range than most manufactured materials (except lasers, a completely different kind of illumination that looks completely different from sunlight).
Color calibration works best when there's a feedback loop of the data passed between different output objects (like paper/ink and a display monitor), linked by a video sensor (that has its own color calibration problems). It's an extremely hard problem. When I was a member of the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG, who created the image file format - I helped with the color spaces spec), we spent a lot of time getting it close enough for commercial use. But we knew enough to tell that "solving" the problem 100% was not going to work. And even now, almost two decades later, it's still not solved. But every few years new tech makes it affordable for industries to add another "9" to what was once 99.999% accurate. The 30 bit gamut [wikipedia.org] of this display monitor means that it doesn't constrain the range of colors as much as have old technologies. But the calibration requries sophisticated processes and software to automate them, as well as a method for comparing to actual outputs. And it still can't account for variances in manufacturing the target output media.
For Hollywood, this problem might be close to solved, though. Because movies are moving to digital projection, which can be manufactured to high precision of consistency in materials and their interaction with light, and from the same parts as the production display monitors. If all the theaters used the same DLP chips, LEDs and image surfaces (or to the precisely same standard specs) for their projectors as the studios did for all their display monitors and as all people did for their home TVs, then colors would be pretty close to identical in all those environments (except for that variable ambient lighting). These display monitors might flexibly replicate a lot of different environments to match, but the matched objects are still highly variable. For $3500, they better deliver something good.
Dr. Evil (Score:5, Funny)
What monitors need to do (Score:3, Informative)
From a digital television perspective I am much more interested in monitor gamut effectively covering the Rec. 709 color space, because that is all I can put on TV. Sure, it's OK to have extended gamut outside Rec. 709, but if you can't actually cover all of Rec. 709 gamut I don't care if you cover color outside that space. Similarly, I'm sure digital cinema people want the DCI gamut covered well first before having coverage outside that gamut.
On the LCD side, the production lines are changing so rapidly that two versions of the same type of panel from different months will have different results. I have seen a $300 Dell LCD computer monitor perform better than some professional television LCD displays that are priced 10 times as much.
My suggestion is to measure displays yourself, and ignore marketing literature. Of course, you need a good broadcast engineering lab to do that, not all networks have such a thing...
If you want to know what you need in a good monitor, see the EBU User requirements for Video Monitors [www.ebu.ch]. SMPTE is working on a set of recommendations as well.
I'm hoping that OLED displays will come to the rescue, but it will take a while for them to come up to needed sizes and maturity.
photosensitive (Score:5, Funny)
LCD, CRT, bah! (Score:3, Funny)
Video card? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I for one.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I for one.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)