Do you really want a Wide Gamut display?: PC Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

	Advanced Search

Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.


	Do you really want a Wide Gamut display?: PC Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review There are quite a few out there. Dell is almost moving toward that direction. LG.Philip's' newest 30" panel can display 102% of the NTSC color gamut. Their previous version used in Dell 3007WFP-HC model does 92%. The average good ones does 72%. Given that 92% covers almost all the Adobe RGB color space and 102% probably slightly exceeds that, why would anyone not want to have one of those beauties? After all, we were editing in the Adobe RGB color space all these years without being able to see the real punchy colors before they were printed, right? The new crop of wide gamut monitors do deliver almost the whole gamut of colors in the Adobe RGB color space as shown by the following screen capture below where the wire frames represent the aRGB color space. http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/image/86530719.jpg The problem arises once the images are displayed outside PhotoShop, especially the ones converted to the sRGB color space for the web use. If you are running Windows XP, the desktop color management is limited. The whole system is color managed but with the final output color space set to sRGB. Connecting one of those wide gamut monitors to it, you will first be amazed by the vivid colors for the landscape photos but then suddenly be shocked to see wrong skin tones for the portraits. What is going on? Well the wide gamut monitors live in the Adobe RGB color space. When fed with images in the sRGB color space, every color will be exaggerated. It has the opposite effect of displaying images in the Adobe RGB color space to an sRGB monitor like we see from time to time. If you are running Vista, you are in better luck. The system is better color managed. If you are running XP, you can change the system color management ICM file from sRGB to Adobe RGB. I have done that and it worked. So what is the problem then? Well, the sRGB has become a de facto standard for the images used in Windows and the Internet. If an image is not tagged with a color profile, it is assumed to be sRGB. We know not all images are tagged with profiles. This is where the problem starts. Suddenly the lovely wedding video you created shows excessive red cast over the skin tones. The same thing goes with every icon and every little image you see on your desktop and browser. The list goes on and on. I have the luck dealing with a wide gamut monitor, the Dell 3007WFP-HC for a week because my 3007WFP broke and Dell sent me a 3007WFP-HC, the wide gamut version. It was not a pleasant week. At one point, I thought about throwing out the Windows system altogether and buy a Macbook Pro to drive my 30" wide gamut monitor properly. Well then I thought about it and realized that approach might still not solve the untagged content problem. Besides, I would have to double my software cost. In the end, I called Dell and asked them to send the same monitor I had before, the non-HC, 72% NTSC gamut coverage model. It came today and my life has been restored. I can stop messing around with profiles and get back to work. -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	Are you saying for photo purposes, it's best to have non-HC version of Dell monitors? Or basically stick with 72% gamut monitors? I currently have two Dell 2007WFP S-IPS monitors with 72% colour gamut. I was thinking of getting a third one with S-IPS screens if I get lucky with the lottery. However, I'm not sure if that would be an entirely wise move. Should I? Another thing is should I just install Adobe Photoshop and activate Adobe RGB? Any other settings I need to configure to get accurate colour tones?


	Quote: : > Are you saying for photo purposes, it's best to have non-HC version > Of Dell monitors? If you are using the monitor primarily with PhotoShop, the HC or wide gamut monitors will do wonders. But outside the PhotoShop or color managed world, the non-HC version will cause fewer headaches. In a perfectly color managed world, every media content should be tagged with a proper color space. The untagged images will be shown by the default color space which should match the monitor. > Or basically stick with 72% gamut monitors? I > currently have two Dell 2007WFP S-IPS monitors with 72% colour gamut. > I was thinking of getting a third one with S-IPS screens if I get > Lucky with the lottery. However, I'm not sure if that would be an > Entirely wise move. Should I? For the reasons I described above, unless the Adobe RGB extreme color rendering in PhotoShop is an absolute requirement, the 72% gamut monitors are better suited for everyday use including photo editing, especially in the Windows environment. The 20" world has moved to the commodity stage with most of 20" made with TN panels. Dell 2007WFP has moved from S-IPS to S-PVA and (rumored) to TN for 2008WFP. What left is the (way) more expensive NEC and Eizo brands. Moving up to a 24" will be more likely getting a non-TN panel. The Dell 24" ones are the S-PVA type which is still better than the TN type. Their 30" is still all S-IPS. > > Another thing is should I just install Adobe Photoshop and activate > Adobe RGB? Any other settings I need to configure to get accurate > Colour tones? There are two schools of thoughts on this. One group says to stay in sRGB and another says to use aRGB. I use both. First of all I shoot 100% RAW. If the files are going to the web without additional editing, the output will be in sRGB and JPEG. Otherwise, if the files are to be tweaked in PhotoShop, the output will be in aRGB and 16-bit TIFF. After the image has been edited, it is converted to 8 bit JPEG in the sRGB color space and tagged as such. If one forgets to convert to sRGB, the colors will be flat because the online world assumes sRGB and most of browsers do not even look at the profiles. -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	I would say that with a MAC is makes more sense. Francesco


	What are the assumed color space for the desktop for the untagged icons, videos and images? Can that assume space be changed globally? If the default or assumed color space does not match monitor's capabilities, the untagged images will be shown incorrectly. The untagged images in the aRGB color space rendered with the sRGB assumption will be shown flat. On the other hand, the untagged images in the sRGB color space rendered with the aRGB assumption will be shown oversaturated. -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	I think you need to run the OSX 'i-Grammer_Checker' application there buddy. It's in the same drop down as 'i-Market_Share_Inflator' and 'i-Hate_Intel_Until_I_Started_Using_Them'. Of course being a Mac user I'm sure you now believe that your operating system has control of the physical gamut range of your monitor. Then again we PC users have enough brain cells to pick and choose our own monitors rather than have a laptop bolted on the back on a specific model, and then call it an i-Mac. As for the topic at hand, while I like to watch football and play Halo3 on a wide gamut display, I hate them for photo editing. Since there's no way I can produce that amount of intensity range in print, I don't see the need to view radioactive reds and blues. The wider the gamut/intensity range of the device, the more destructive the soft proof profile is and more chance of error. So, I prefer a more conservative monitor if I'm working exclusively for printing. They do look nice though.


	Scott Quote: : > I think you need to run the OSX 'i-Grammer_Checker' application there > Buddy. It's in the same drop down as 'i-Market_Share_Inflator' and > 'i-Hate_Intel_Until_I_Started_Using_Them'. Well, I think you need to cut the "non-native English" speaking contributors to the forum a little more slack... > Of course being a Mac user I'm sure you now believe that your > Operating system has control of the physical gamut range of your > Monitor. Then again we PC users have enough brain cells to pick and > Choose our own monitors rather than have a laptop bolted on the back > On a specific model, and then call it an i-Mac. ...and maybe try to resist being quite so patronising. Just an observation - which, of course, you may choose to ignor.


	Mark Quote: : > > Scott Quote: : > > I think you need to run the OSX 'i-Grammer_Checker' application there > > buddy. It's in the same drop down as 'i-Market_Share_Inflator' and > > 'i-Hate_Intel_Until_I_Started_Using_Them'. > > Well, I think you need to cut the "non-native English" speaking > Contributors to the forum a little more slack... > > > Of course being a Mac user I'm sure you now believe that your > > operating system has control of the physical gamut range of your > > monitor. Then again we PC users have enough brain cells to pick and > > choose our own monitors rather than have a laptop bolted on the back > > on a specific model, and then call it an i-Mac. > > ...and maybe try to resist being quite so patronising. That's impossible for Scott. He has a history on the photo discussion groups for bigoted and trolling remarks when it comes to Apple-related discussions.


	Quote: : > > Mark Quote: : > > > > Scott Quote: : > > > I think you need to run the OSX 'i-Grammer_Checker' application there > > > buddy. It's in the same drop down as 'i-Market_Share_Inflator' and > > > 'i-Hate_Intel_Until_I_Started_Using_Them'. > > > > Well, I think you need to cut the "non-native English" speaking > > contributors to the forum a little more slack... > > > > > Of course being a Mac user I'm sure you now believe that your > > > operating system has control of the physical gamut range of your > > > monitor. Then again we PC users have enough brain cells to pick and > > > choose our own monitors rather than have a laptop bolted on the back > > > on a specific model, and then call it an i-Mac. > > > > ...and maybe try to resist being quite so patronising. > > That's impossible for Scott. He has a history on the photo discussion > Groups for bigoted and trolling remarks when it comes to > Apple-related discussions. it's not an apple-related discussion.


	I use mac (since few years), PC, Amigas, Commodores, Spectrum, Osborne ... A true geek not a apple messiah. I think you picked on the wrong guy. Mac OS helps in managing profiles more than Windows at this moment in time. Furthermore, I only care to watch my photos more than other people's and use a laptop+widegamut screen config which allows checking on issues in profiles. As for printing ... I love to be able to see all my colors (since I use aRGB in camera anyway) before sending it over to them. Francesco


	Is it possible to use the internal sRGB preset that some wide gamut monitors (eg, NEC 2690WUXi) have, and get good results? That is, first use the monitor's internal menu to selec sRGB, then calibrate it in sRGB using Eye One or similar. Would that give you the equivalent of a standard gamut display? My idea is that if the above maneuver works, then it would be like having two screens in one. For most purposes -- if this idea is right -- you could stay in calibrated sRGB. Then when you feel you need aRGB you could switch modes. If this notion works -- and the "if" is a big question mark -- if would allow easy use for everyday purposes, including Photoshop, in the sRGB that everyone's been getting great photo images with for many years. Then, for professional or super-critical use, the monitor could be put into aRGB on those occasions. Or am I wrong? Has anyone tried this?


	Quote: : > Is it possible to use the internal sRGB preset that some wide gamut > Monitors (eg, NEC 2690WUXi) have, and get good results? That is, > first use the monitor's internal menu to selec sRGB, then calibrate > It in sRGB using Eye One or similar. Would that give you the > Equivalent of a standard gamut display? It should provided if it is calibrated correctly and the Windows desktop is set back to sRGB. > > My idea is that if the above maneuver works, then it would be like > Having two screens in one. For most purposes -- if this idea is > Right -- you could stay in calibrated sRGB. Then when you feel you > Need aRGB you could switch modes. > Another way is to have two monitors, one in standard sRGB gamut and another WG. Connect both to a dual head video card and calibrate them both. Set the Windows to sRGB. Use the WG monitor with PhotoShop and use the std gamut monitor for everything else. I can't do this as my Dell 30" takes all the desktop space. If you have two smaller 20" , 24" or a bigger desk, this approach should work nicely. At this point, I still prefer my single large 30" to two smaller ones. If I decide tio have two computers and have the space for the second setup I wold go for the Dell 30" HC model. The color was gorgeous, punchy and vibrant! It just cannot handle the daily stuff. > If this notion works -- and the "if" is a big question mark -- if > Would allow easy use for everyday purposes, including Photoshop, in > The sRGB that everyone's been getting great photo images with for > Many years. Then, for professional or super-critical use, the > Monitor could be put into aRGB on those occasions. > In theory it should work. If the switchover is easy and painless. Otherwise, if it requires rebooting the computer or recalibration, it would be more trouble than its worth. > Or am I wrong? Has anyone tried this? >


	What you are describing CAN be done. You will be calibrating your monitor through your GFX card (like all other monitors) when in sRGB mode. So the process would be the following. If you are in aRGB mode, your monitor is running off of the hardware LUT calibration and your system is setup for aRGB. If you switch to sRGB, you do so by changing choosing this option in the monitor and afterwards change your video card profile to the one that is calibrated for your screen while in sRGB. If you switch back, you must choose the option in the monitor to disable sRGB and then choose the appropriate profile from your gfx card. Here is another bone to throw in...Not sure if you have read this, but it was written by Karl Lang who is highly reputable in the color and display industry. It was written a couple of years ago, but nothing has changed since. http://www.outbackphoto.com/tforum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=1700


	Quote: : > > Here is another bone to throw in...Not sure if you have read this, > But it was written by Karl Lang who is highly reputable in the color > And display industry. It was written a couple of years ago, but > Nothing has changed since. > > Http://www.outbackphoto.com/tforum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=1700 I've read that article a few times before, and along with other reports and experiments, I've concluded that for monitors with approximately AdobeRGB/NTSC gamuts, the "colour quantisation step size" issue is not of great significance. The gamut size/step smoothness is certainly a "borderline situation" with the 24 bit colour system (8 bits each RGB). There is a small effect, that can be perceived - but it's fairly difficult to see, unless doing a close up "switching between the two" comparison.


	8 Bit color deth causes banding Issues if wide gammuts are used. According to Wikipedia, Display Port is capable of 16 bits per color channel. Some LCDs and graphics cards (Such as bullet1's Dell monitor) already offer this display interface. Several Professional Grafics Cards also offer enchanced color depts. On top of that, Photoshop can already manage 16 and 32 Bit files. However, a 16 bit pipeline from software to display is still not possible. I hope that hardware manufactures and software developers will start setting that up soon. -Matt


	>>>Given that 92% covers almost all the Adobe RGB color space and 102% probably slightly exceeds that, why would anyone not want to have one of those beauties? Because contrary to color space charts, you can't print those colors. I've worked with the widest gamut range print materials there are, and they can't match wide gamut displays. If my intent is to print, I don't want to see colors that don't exist. Take the magenta and yellow ink cartridges out of your Epson printer, dump them on a white sheet of paper, illuminate them with 400watt 5000k Metal halide lamp, and the instensity of the color magenta or red won't be nearly as vivid as a wide gamut display. That proves your printer can't match wide gamut displays because the medium itself can't. Kodak RA-4 materials like Duralife are far, far worse.


	I have not thought about printing. I am sure technology will improve and better inks or toners will be developed. Most of my digital images never go to print. That is one of the main reasons I bought the 30" LCD display. Every image can now be shown larger than a 16x24 print. It becomes the new way to enjoy the digital images. However I was quite bothered by the inaccurate skin tones rendered by the non-color managed browsers and from the untagged images on the wide gamut display. I would also have trouble watching sport videos with unrealistic skin tones. What we need is the equivalent of PhotoShop CS3's vibrance control, show vivid colors everywhere except skin tones. I can live with that. Until then I cannot stand the wrong skin tones shown by the wide gamut displays when the images are oversaturated. -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	Scott's right about the printer colour space being really tiny, and then the result depends on whether the printer makes a good approximation or not. Some would argue that something like Photoshop converting to a calibrated printer profile first would do the best job of it, others that the printer knows best. But I have question about images which are tagged as having a certain profile rather than actually converted that profile. The question is, are you sure that browsers, printers etc actually take notice of the tag or do they simply ignore it? Some programs like Photoshop certainly do take it into account, but most as far as I know simply ignore it. I'm pretty sure a browser that isn't colour aware will simply ignore it. So I'm not sure that when you've tagged an image as AdobeRGB your browser will show a difference. Try actually converting them first and see if it looks the same. By the way, have you seen what the colour space of your camera is? I can't speak for all but the ones I've looked at are really large, much larger than wide gamut and way larger than AdobeRGB. Ian


	Quote: : > Scott's right about the printer colour space being really tiny, and > Then the result depends on whether the printer makes a good > Approximation or not. Some would argue that something like Photoshop > Converting to a calibrated printer profile first would do the best > Job of it, others that the printer knows best. According to this link, having a wide gamut display actually helps printing. http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y "PRINT-TARGET MEDIA PROCESSING (print proofing/Adobe RGB photo editing, Publisher/PageMaker) * High contrast at medium brightness * Accurate color/gamma curve * Good text reproduction * Wide gamut (92% W-CCFL or >100% LED) preferred for CMYK/print matching" > But I have question about images which are tagged as having a certain > Profile rather than actually converted that profile. In that case, PhotoShop may ask you if the embedded profile does not match the PhotoShop default. You'll have to know what the color space is supposed to be to make the right decision. Many color-managed apps including PhotoShop may not ask the question and just apply the profile and the images may not be shown correctly. > The question is, > Are you sure that browsers, printers etc actually take notice of the > Tag or do they simply ignore it? Some programs like Photoshop > Certainly do take it into account, but most as far as I know simply > Ignore it. I'm pretty sure a browser that isn't colour aware will > Simply ignore it. Most browsers in the Windows environment ignore profiles and apply the Windows default, sRGB unless you change the system profile as I described in this thread. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=25024413 > So I'm not sure that when you've tagged an image as AdobeRGB your > Browser will show a difference. Try actually converting them first > And see if it looks the same. Only the browsers on MacOS and Firefox 3 (alpha version) on Windows understand embedded profiles and use them. Safari on Windows only does that half way. > By the way, have you seen what the colour space of your camera is? I > can't speak for all but the ones I've looked at are really large, > Much larger than wide gamut and way larger than AdobeRGB. > Ian I heard it's ProPhoto RGB or Std Photo YCC Print. Both are much larger than Adobe RGB. Just bring up your Windows color applet and see for yourself. If you are using XP and don't it installed, you are missing the system wide color management on Windows. -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	Hi Nelson (bullet1) and company, I've been reading these various "wide-gamut" monitor related threads with great interest, but haven't had the time to be able to respond as often as I would have liked to recently. I would like to start by commenting/warning readers that there has been a fair amount of misunderstanding/misrepresentation of some of the facts and mechanisms involved - here and there. As this is one of the more recent threads, I'll jump in here with just one or two observations/comments... Quote: : > Quote: : > > But I have question about images which are tagged as having a certain > > profile rather than actually converted that profile. With very few exceptions, if an image is "tagged" with a particular profile then it should be in that profile - by implication conversion, if there ever was a conversion, has already been carried out. > In that case, PhotoShop may ask you if the embedded profile does not > Match the PhotoShop default. You'll have to know what the color > Space is supposed to be to make the right decision. Many > color-managed apps including PhotoShop may not ask the question and > Just apply the profile and the images may not be shown correctly. I think there is confusion of different matters/topics here - Photoshop may ask about conversion when the image's colour profile does not match the "working space" - but Photoshop is not asking whether the image's colour profile is correct or not (except perhaps where there is no profile/tag at all). If the user knows the images colour profile is wrong, or missing, then the correct action is first to "assign" the correct profile - not to convert - although conversion may then follow where required. > > The question is, > > are you sure that browsers, printers etc actually take notice of the > > tag or do they simply ignore it? Some programs like Photoshop > > certainly do take it into account, but most as far as I know simply > > ignore it. I'm pretty sure a browser that isn't colour aware will > > simply ignore it. > > Most browsers in the Windows environment ignore profiles and apply > The Windows default, sRGB... This isn't quite right - the browsers don't "apply default/sRGB" as such - they simply don't apply any profile/colour management whatsoever. > Only the browsers on MacOS and Firefox 3 (alpha version) on Windows > Understand embedded profiles and use them. Safari on Windows only > Does that half way. Safari 3 for Windows can use embedded image profiles - but it converts to sRGB, ignoring whatever the display profile is. It is assuming the display is always sRGB (which won't always be right). As I know you already know - the Firefox 3 (currently in alpha test version) for Windows will (when enabled) both convert from the embedded image profile where present, AND convert to the display profile - just like Photoshop does.


	Mark Quote: : > Hi Nelson (bullet1) and company, > > I've been reading these various "wide-gamut" monitor related threads > With great interest, but haven't had the time to be able to respond > As often as I would have liked to recently. > > With very few exceptions, if an image is "tagged" with a particular > Profile then it should be in that profile - by implication > Conversion, if there ever was a conversion, has already been carried > Out. > Hi Mark No, converting and tagging are two different things. When you tag an image you add an embedded profile. This is a file added to the header which tells the program reading it what changes need to be made. As often the differences are quite small, this usually doesn't contain much information but as we've all agreed, most programs ignore it. So, if you have an sRGB file and you tag it in AdobeRGB, the file will tell the program that the 1001 colour of the sRGB should be read as 11101 but in each case, if it ignores it the actual file is sRGB and will be read as such and you'll see no difference. When you convert with a program like Photoshop, it goes into the actual data and in the above example will actually convert the 1001 number to 11101. Now if the program treats the file as sRGB it'll look different which is why the Adobe space in an unmanaged program looks washed out. Ian


	Hi Ian, > Mark Quote: : > > With very few exceptions, if an image is "tagged" with a particular > > profile then it should be in that profile - by implication conversion > > if there ever was a conversion, has already been carried out. > > Quote: : > > Hi Mark > No, converting and tagging are two different things. Yes - and NO (explanation at the end). However - this is not directly relevent to the point I was making regarding your original misunderstanding/error. > When you tag an image you add an embedded profile. This is a file > Added to the header... Correct, only as far as that - beyond which, you are quite mistaken... > This is a file added to the header which tells the > Program reading it what changes need to be made. This is wrong - the embedded profile tells an application what colour space the image's data is ALREADY IN - it does NOT, in itself, tell an application what changes are needed, or are intended. > So, if you have an sRGB file and you tag it in AdobeRGB... If you did that, you would confuse any colour-managing application that read it - and you would get totally incorrect colour translation/reproduction. You should only ever "tag" an image (known as "assign" in Photoshop) with a particular profile, where the image is actually known to be in that particular colour space (but was not originaly tagged). No data is changed, tagging merely identifies the existing colour space of the data. If you want your image to be in a different colour space - then you "convert" from the existing colour space to the newly chosen colour space - N.B. In this "convert" case - both the data (numbers) are changed, AND the newly chosen colour profile will be embedded/tagged in place of the original profile (so not entirely different things at all). Mark.


	Quote: : > Only the browsers on MacOS and Firefox 3 (alpha version) on Windows > Understand embedded profiles and use them. Safari on Windows only > Does that half way. As far as I know, only Safari on Mac OS is color aware. Firefox will also get color awareness in version 3, but the current version also shows images in color profiles other than sRGB wrong. So the situation is similar as on windows. (IE on the Mac also was color aware, but noone is using that one anymore)


	Quote: : > ... Firefox will also get color awareness in version 3, > But the current version also shows images in color profiles > Other than sRGB wrong. I've had positive success with Firefox 3 Beta 4, but you have to remember to set the appropriate boolean to TRUE in order to get access to color mgmt: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html Load "about:config" (a local webpage) in browser's address field and change the following boolean to TRUE: > Gfx.color_management.enabled Works great and you can test it (or any other browser solution) by viewing the images on this site: http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html -- Traveller - Geneve * Melbourne * Miami * Wien


	-- 'Curiouser and curiouser' said Alice


	Which is why I normally deliver sRGB files for proof or delivery when doing work for commercial clients especially if its for CMYK process prints or worse, newsprint... Printers just cannot reproduce alot of aRGB and some clients just cannot or will not understand the concept of gamuts and limits of reproduceability with current print technology... but if you are looking for a relatively affordable (compared to its competitor at least) monitor with a really wide gamut, try the Samsung XL20, which is an LED backlit montor with 114% NTSC colour


	According to this link, having a wide gamut display actually helps printing. http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y "PRINT-TARGET MEDIA PROCESSING (print proofing/Adobe RGB photo editing, Publisher/PageMaker) * High contrast at medium brightness * Accurate color/gamma curve * Good text reproduction * Wide gamut (92% W-CCFL or >100% LED) preferred for CMYK/print matching ... PHOTO EDITING/WEB DESIGN (classic sRGB/web-target photo editing, or web design) * High contrast at medium brightness * Accurate color/gamma curve * sRGB (72% NTSC) gamut for better screen matching" Do you disagree with their recommendations? -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	People have been using sRGB for years with excellent results. Why bother switching now? Based on everything I have read, WG displays seem like nothing but a PITA. Quote: : > According to this link, having a wide gamut display actually helps > Printing. > > Http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y > > "PRINT-TARGET MEDIA PROCESSING (print proofing/Adobe RGB photo > Editing, Publisher/PageMaker) > * High contrast at medium brightness > * Accurate color/gamma curve > * Good text reproduction > * Wide gamut (92% W-CCFL or >100% LED) preferred for CMYK/print matching > > ... > > PHOTO EDITING/WEB DESIGN (classic sRGB/web-target photo editing, or > Web design) > > * High contrast at medium brightness > * Accurate color/gamma curve > * sRGB (72% NTSC) gamut for better screen matching" > > Do you disagree with their recommendations? > -- > Nelson Chen > Http://pbase.com/nelsonc > Http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ > 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro > Http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg > 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: > Http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	Quote: : > People have been using sRGB for years with excellent results. > > Why bother switching now? Based on everything I have read, WG > Displays seem like nothing but a PITA. > They recommended using the Adobe RGB range or wide gamut displays with 92% coverage for print work. Do you agree with that recommendation? Is your answer still YES? > Quote: : > > According to this link, having a wide gamut display actually helps > > printing. > > > > http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y > > > > "PRINT-TARGET MEDIA PROCESSING (print proofing/Adobe RGB photo > > editing, Publisher/PageMaker) > > * High contrast at medium brightness > > * Accurate color/gamma curve > > * Good text reproduction > > * Wide gamut (92% W-CCFL or >100% LED) preferred for CMYK/print matching > > > > ... > > > > PHOTO EDITING/WEB DESIGN (classic sRGB/web-target photo editing, or > > web design) > > > > * High contrast at medium brightness > > * Accurate color/gamma curve > > * sRGB (72% NTSC) gamut for better screen matching" > > > > Do you disagree with their recommendations? -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	(NT)


	Well it depends on the scenario. If you are working in Photoshop ALL day long and are not really using your monitor for anything else then YES this statement would hold true. Although, this statement is unrealistic for the average person since their computer is used to perform multiple functions. As you already know it has been reported by quite a few about how annoying certain things can look on a WG display. So if you are a hobiest like myself, and are concerned about color correct but are not interested with tinkering with your monitor to get it to look right when not photo editing, then I am going to have to say NO. Quote: : > Quote: : > > People have been using sRGB for years with excellent results. > > > > Why bother switching now? Based on everything I have read, WG > > displays seem like nothing but a PITA. > > > > They recommended using the Adobe RGB range or wide gamut displays > With 92% coverage for print work. > > Do you agree with that recommendation? > > Is your answer still YES? > > > > Quote: : > > > According to this link, having a wide gamut display actually helps > > > printing. > > > > > > http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y > > > > > > "PRINT-TARGET MEDIA PROCESSING (print proofing/Adobe RGB photo > > > editing, Publisher/PageMaker) > > > * High contrast at medium brightness > > > * Accurate color/gamma curve > > > * Good text reproduction > > > * Wide gamut (92% W-CCFL or >100% LED) preferred for CMYK/print matching > > > > > > ... > > > > > > PHOTO EDITING/WEB DESIGN (classic sRGB/web-target photo editing, or > > > web design) > > > > > > * High contrast at medium brightness > > > * Accurate color/gamma curve > > > * sRGB (72% NTSC) gamut for better screen matching" > > > > > > Do you disagree with their recommendations? > > > -- > Nelson Chen > Http://pbase.com/nelsonc > Http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ > 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro > Http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg > 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: > Http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	Scott Quote: : > >>>Given that 92% covers almost all the Adobe RGB color space and 102% probably slightly exceeds that, why would anyone not want to have one of those beauties? > > Because contrary to color space charts, you can't print those colors. There are at least two good benefits to a wide gamut display. The first is that while most printers can't achieve all the colors of the aRGB color space, they can print some colors that exceed the space. That is, one gamut isn't completely contained within the other. So, there will be some colors that are outside of sRGB, displayable on an aRGB monitor and still printable. The second reason is the ability to better map your image tones for best printing. The key to optimal printing is soft proofing and going back and forth between normal and soft proofed display. If you see a large blob of uniform, saturated color on a smaller-gamut monitor and see that similar blob in print, you aren't necessarily getting the best possible print despite the "match." Rather, it would be more useful to display the image on a wider gamut monitor that shows the actual gradations in color in that region, notice the collapse into a flat "blob" during soft proofing and the then adjust the image to get the soft print to show the best possible semblence of the desired gradation. Without having the wider gamut display to reference, you might otherwise not even realize the presence of that gradation/detail in order to focus adjustments there. David


	Interest post - thanks for sharing.


	Can you break down a list of what were the most annoying problems. Thanks, Dave


	Any non-color managed applications will be showing or saving in the wrong colors. Any applications that show images tagged with Adobe RGB incorrectly will likely be showing wrong colors with the WG monitors. IrfanView, IE6/7, Firefox2, MS Paint just to name a few. Some of the applications can be one way color management to convert aRGB to sRGB for display but cannot convert from sRGB to aRGB for the WG monitors, such as Apple Safari. The videos and icons will be all messed up as well. You have to own a WG monitor to experience this yourself. It was pretty wild. Things you take for granted (ie sRGB) suddenly were showing the wrong colors. -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	Quote: : > ... > The problem arises once the images are displayed outside PhotoShop, > Especially the ones converted to the sRGB color space for the web use. > > If you are running Windows XP, the desktop color management is > Limited. The whole system is color managed but with the final output > Color space set to sRGB. This is not correct - "the system" is largely NOT colour managed (or at least not fully) and that is where the problem really lays. > If you are running Vista, you are in better luck. The system is > Better color managed. If you are running XP, you can change the > System color management ICM file from sRGB to Adobe RGB. I have done > that and it worked. I read your previous thread describing this - but you have to admit that that XP "dodge" has some very real limitations and flaws. It will only show corrected colours when the application/OS calls the colour conversion function, and this probably won't even occur where images are untagged or alrready tagged as sRGB. Also, Photoshop may end up embedding "false sRGB" profiles (your renamed AdobeRGB profile) into your sRGB images, which may not be apparent on your system but could give erroneous conversion on other peoples' systems (primarily in colour managed app's like Photoshop). > In the end, I called Dell and asked them to send the same monitor I > Had before, the non-HC, 72% NTSC gamut coverage model. It came today > And my life has been restored. I can stop messing around with > Profiles and get back to work. So what you did, that you said "worked", presumably didn't work well enough. Please note, I'm really not trying to have a go at you - I'm just trying to clarify some points, and point out what might appear to be contradictary statements.


	Mark Quote: : > Please note, I'm really not trying to have a go at you - I'm just > Trying to clarify some points, and point out what might appear to be > Contradictary statements. No problem. You are right. It was a struggle and in the end I gave up. This is the whole reason I decided to start this thread and share my bad experiences with the folks here. Hopefully this thread will give them a glimpse what they are getting into when getting one of those super duper WG panels. I suppose Vista does a bit better as I did not have to do anything to get the Windows Gallery Viewer (counterpart of the XP Picture and Fax Viewer) to show correct colors. I did not get into video and other stuff because I was tired of the wrong skin tones in the browsers already. The alpha version of Firefox was a good start but it did not work with many add-ons. I don't have any experience with the MacOS and don't know if that system can be tweaked to set the default conversion to Adobe RGB or the monitor profile. If it can do that, all left is the untagged images and videos but that is still a lot of stuff to deal with. -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	As for your photos that were aRGB how would you compare them being viewed in PS on a WG display vs the non WG display? Quote: : > > Mark Quote: : > > Please note, I'm really not trying to have a go at you - I'm just > > trying to clarify some points, and point out what might appear to be > > contradictary statements. > > No problem. You are right. It was a struggle and in the end I gave up. > > This is the whole reason I decided to start this thread and share my > Bad experiences with the folks here. Hopefully this thread will give > Them a glimpse what they are getting into when getting one of those > Super duper WG panels. > > I suppose Vista does a bit better as I did not have to do anything to > Get the Windows Gallery Viewer (counterpart of the XP Picture and Fax > Viewer) to show correct colors. I did not get into video and other > Stuff because I was tired of the wrong skin tones in the browsers > Already. The alpha version of Firefox was a good start but it did > Not work with many add-ons. > > I don't have any experience with the MacOS and don't know if that > System can be tweaked to set the default conversion to Adobe RGB or > The monitor profile. If it can do that, all left is the untagged > Images and videos but that is still a lot of stuff to deal with. > -- > Nelson Chen > Http://pbase.com/nelsonc > Http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ > 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro > Http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg > 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: > Http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	I didn't see any reference to it in this thread, but Karl Lang doesn't have much good to say about wide gamut monitors. An excerpt: 1) A wide gamut LCD display is not a good thing for most (95%) of high end users. The data that leaves your graphic card and travels over the DVI cable is 8 bit per component. You can't change this. The OS, ICC CMMs, the graphic card, the DVI spec, and Photoshop will all have to be upgraded before this will change and that's going to take a while. What does this mean to you? It means that when you send RGB data to a wide gamut display the colorimetric distance between any two colors is much larger. As an example, lets say you have two adjacent color patches one is 230,240,200 and the patch next to it is 230,241,200. On a standard LCD or CRT those two colors may be around .8 Delta E apart. On an Adobe RGB display those colors might be 2 Delta E apart on an ECI RGB display this could be as high as 4 delta E. It's very nice to be able to display all kinds of saturated colors you may never use in your photographs, however if the smallest visible adjustment you can make to a skin tone is 4 delta E you will become very frustrated very quickly. Link: http://www.outbackphoto.com/tforum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=1700


	Quote: : > As for your photos that were aRGB how would you compare them being > Viewed in PS on a WG display vs the non WG display? Any photos tagged properly will be displayed correctly inside PhotoShop regardless the monitor being WG or non-WG. The profile can be sRGB, aRGB, ProPhotoRGB or Wide Gamut RGB. Of course the tagged profile must be the same as the color space the photo is in or the colors will be wrong. -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	The WG images look richer due to the higher contrast. There is no OSD on the 30" monitor (Ezio has a new one that does have OSD). The only control is Brightness. This makes it impossible to preset the monitor's RGB/contrast. You need to adjust color via the videocard which of course is going to throw off any hardware calibration. Quote: : > As for your photos that were aRGB how would you compare them being > Viewed in PS on a WG display vs the non WG display? > > Quote: : > > > > Mark Quote: : > > > Please note, I'm really not trying to have a go at you - I'm just > > > trying to clarify some points, and point out what might appear to be > > > contradictary statements. > > > > No problem. You are right. It was a struggle and in the end I gave up. > > > > This is the whole reason I decided to start this thread and share my > > bad experiences with the folks here. Hopefully this thread will give > > them a glimpse what they are getting into when getting one of those > > super duper WG panels. > > > > I suppose Vista does a bit better as I did not have to do anything to > > get the Windows Gallery Viewer (counterpart of the XP Picture and Fax > > Viewer) to show correct colors. I did not get into video and other > > stuff because I was tired of the wrong skin tones in the browsers > > already. The alpha version of Firefox was a good start but it did > > not work with many add-ons. > > > > I don't have any experience with the MacOS and don't know if that > > system can be tweaked to set the default conversion to Adobe RGB or > > the monitor profile. If it can do that, all left is the untagged > > images and videos but that is still a lot of stuff to deal with. > > -- > > Nelson Chen > > Http://pbase.com/nelsonc > > http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ > > 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro > > http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg > > 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: > > http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all >


	After all this talk, are we better off with sRGB displays or aRGB displays? Can windows Vista allow you to choose the target RGB Space?


	Quote: : > After all this talk, are we better off with sRGB displays or aRGB > Displays? It depends what you do. The WG displays work the best in the fully color managed applications, such as PhotoShop. > > Can windows Vista allow you to choose the target RGB Space? From my limited exposure to it, it looks like it can. Even without changing the default system color space, it handled the WG display better. Vista's Windows Photo Gallery Viewer showed correct colors with images in the sRGB to the aRGB range WG display. Non-color managed browsers, namely IE7 and Firefox 2.0.07, were still showing wrong colors on Vista. I did not try video and other contents. By that time, my XP system was set up pretty close to what the Vista was showing. At that level, the videos on XP was still showing unrealistic skin tones. The untagged images will still be displayed wrong unless the intended color space of the image matches the range of the display. This is true even for the MacOS. There is no cure for it unless all the images are tagged. This was the reason for the assumed sRGB color space for the Windows and Internet. When the color space is unspecified, it is assumed to be sRGB. -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	Just my two cents worth See my latest post in the "NEC 2690WUXi - Can it handle sRGB forum": http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=25085885 -- Jim www.jimcolephoto.com Flagstaff, Arizona


	Excellent points. Thank you. We'll get there eventually, but sounds like we're not ready for a wider-gamut world quite yet. Maybe once standard inkjet printers can reproduce the aRGB colors and windows figures out color management. Dan


	Dan Quote: : > Excellent points. Thank you. > > We'll get there eventually, but sounds like we're not ready for a > Wider-gamut world quite yet. Maybe once standard inkjet printers can > Reproduce the aRGB colors and windows figures out color management. It's quite a simple problem really - it's simply that the OS and many (most) applications don't bother to do any colour management translations. All the technology and knowledge, and even OS support (API DLLs) are already there - it's just that the software engineers/vendors haven't quite appreciated the need. Photoshop, and the next version of Firefox can carry out full input/output colour management (including the display monitor gamut variations) - there's absolutely no practical reason why other applications and OS's couldn't do the same in subsequent new releases.


	There is only a Brightness Control. If it had an OSD you could make the proper Color/Contrast adjustments before calibrating. There is no Service Menu to access either. Ezio has a 30" with OSD (expensive). Mark Quote: : > > Dan Quote: : > > Excellent points. Thank you. > > > > We'll get there eventually, but sounds like we're not ready for a > > wider-gamut world quite yet. Maybe once standard inkjet printers can > > reproduce the aRGB colors and windows figures out color management. > > It's quite a simple problem really - it's simply that the OS and many > (most) applications don't bother to do any colour management > Translations. > > All the technology and knowledge, and even OS support (API DLLs) are > Already there - it's just that the software engineers/vendors haven't > Quite appreciated the need. > > Photoshop, and the next version of Firefox can carry out full > Input/output colour management (including the display monitor gamut > Variations) - there's absolutely no practical reason why other > Applications and OS's couldn't do the same in subsequent new releases.


	Quote: : > There is only a Brightness Control. If it had an OSD you could make > The proper Color/Contrast adjustments before calibrating. There is no > Service Menu to access either. Ezio has a 30" with OSD (expensive). That wasn't realy what I was refering to in my preceeding post - but it's certainly something that shouldn't be overlooked. In some ways, it can actually be a good thing to not have colour controls on the monitor as well as having controls on the graphics card/drivers. If you have controls on both the monitor and the graphics driver, it's possible to be correcting a badly adjusted monitor control setting with a cancelling adjustment/calibration from the graphics driver. This might sound O.K., but it can easily result in degradation of quality in range and gradations. Having controls on the monitor, is only really desireable/necessary where the user can't make the required adjustments via the graphics card driver or a hardware calibrator - but graphics card adjustments can be difficult for many users to understand and adjust well, and not everyone is prepared to pay the additional expense of a hardware calibrator, so it's clear to see why most monitors have built in controls. For anyone with a hardware calibrator device (Spyder, Eye1 etc), the absence of controls on the monitor is of no real significance, as long as the native calibration of the display isn't too far out. Nevertheless, as you rightly highlight - the lack of built in adjustment capability is definitely something that needs to be considered, because it dictates that you either have to be quite knowledgable and skilled in graphics driver adjustments, or preferably have a hardware calibrator device, if you want a well adjusted display. I've read occasional mentions that later versions of some of these displays, yet to come, will have more OSD controls - but have no idea if, where or when these might be appearing.


	Mark Quote: : > Quote: : > > There is only a Brightness Control. If it had an OSD you could make > > the proper Color/Contrast adjustments before calibrating. There is no > > Service Menu to access either. Ezio has a 30" with OSD (expensive). > > That wasn't realy what I was refering to in my preceeding post - but > It's certainly something that shouldn't be overlooked. > > In some ways, it can actually be a good thing to not have colour > Controls on the monitor as well as having controls on the graphics > Card/drivers. You should never use your graphics card for color management (unless you don't have and OSD). > > If you have controls on both the monitor and the graphics driver, > It's possible to be correcting a badly adjusted monitor control > Setting with a cancelling adjustment/calibration from the graphics > Driver. This might sound O.K., but it can easily result in > Degradation of quality in range and gradations. Again, you shouldn't use your graphics card and in this case you have the OSD. > > Having controls on the monitor, is only really desireable/necessary > Where the user can't make the required adjustments via the graphics > Card driver or a hardware calibrator - but graphics card adjustments > Can be difficult for many users to understand and adjust well, and > Not everyone is prepared to pay the additional expense of a hardware > Calibrator, so it's clear to see why most monitors have built in > Controls. > > For anyone with a hardware calibrator device (Spyder, Eye1 etc), the > Absence of controls on the monitor is of no real significance, as > Long as the native calibration of the display isn't too far out. It is a HUGE problem. It is the problem that this thread is all about. You first need to set your "monitor'" color/brightness/contrast and then run your calibrator. All of your apps will look the same (or at least close enough to the color aware apps). You "cannot" do this when adjusting your video card...it will throw off any hardware calibration where adjusting the OSD on the monitor will not. > > Nevertheless, as you rightly highlight - the lack of built in > Adjustment capability is definitely something that needs to be > Considered, because it dictates that you either have to be quite > Knowledgable and skilled in graphics driver adjustments, or > Preferably have a hardware calibrator device, if you want a well > Adjusted display. Once again...you are double profiling when adjusting a video card but not when adjusting the OSD.


	Quote: : > > Mark Quote: : > > Quote: : > > > There is only a Brightness Control. If it had an OSD you could make > > > the proper Color/Contrast adjustments before calibrating. There is no > > > Service Menu to access either. Ezio has a 30" with OSD (expensive). > > > > That wasn't realy what I was refering to in my preceeding post - but > > it's certainly something that shouldn't be overlooked. > > > > In some ways, it can actually be a good thing to not have colour > > controls on the monitor as well as having controls on the graphics > > card/drivers. > > You should never use your graphics card for color management (unless > You don't have and OSD). We are not talking about colour management here, we are talking about calibration - they are quite seperate things. I'm not saying that you shouldn't use OSD controls where they exist - I'm saying that it's not necessarily a bad thing if they don't exist. In many cases an OSD is doing no more than a graphics card LUT calibration is doing (whether via hardware calibrator, or driver UI utilty). Even the (apparently) revered Karl Lang (I can't vouch for him myself) says... "As an example the fact that Apple's display has no controls other than backlight is actually a very good thing for an 8-8-8 LCD if your going to use calibration. Apple optimizes the factory LUTs so as to provide the most individual colors. Smooth greyscale and the least loss. Then the calibration is done in the graphic card LUT. As these are all 8 bit it's best if the user does not mess with the display LUTs at all." ..."mess with the display LUTs" refering to adjustment by OSD controls. > > If you have controls on both the monitor and the graphics driver, > > it's possible to be correcting a badly adjusted monitor control > > setting with a cancelling adjustment/calibration from the graphics > > driver. This might sound O.K., but it can easily result in > > degradation of quality in range and gradations. > > Again, you shouldn't use your graphics card and in this case you have > The OSD. No - in many cases you should use your graphics card - what do you think a hardware calibration device adjusts - not the monitor, but the graphics card's LUTs. > > Having controls on the monitor, is only really desireable/necessary > > where the user can't make the required adjustments via the graphics > > card driver or a hardware calibrator - but graphics card adjustments > > can be difficult for many users to understand and adjust well, and > > not everyone is prepared to pay the additional expense of a hardware > > calibrator, so it's clear to see why most monitors have built in > > controls. > > > > > For anyone with a hardware calibrator device (Spyder, Eye1 etc), the > > absence of controls on the monitor is of no real significance, as > > long as the native calibration of the display isn't too far out. > > It is a HUGE problem. It is the problem that this thread is all > About. ... This thread was actualy started about "wide-gamuts", not calibration. > ... You first need to set your "monitor'" > Color/brightness/contrast and then run your calibrator. The "backlighting brightness" is certainly important, because many calibrators won't handle brightness levels that are beyond their working ranges. As regards colour - the recomendation for LCD monitors is very often to calibrate at their "native" colour temperature setting. As for other LCD's OSD "brightness and contrast" controls - we would very often be better off without them, because their effect is very often poorly defined. > All of your > apps will look the same (or at least close enough to the color aware > Apps). That statement is completely wrong. Calibration, whether done by hardware calibrators or manually via the graphics driver utilitiy - will NOT make all your apps look the same on a "wide-gamut" display, where some apps are colour aware and others are not. Calibration only alters black point, white point, grey scale, colour temperature, and gamma - it does NOT adjust the "gamut". Calibration only "measures and records" the gamut (the RGB primaries, in the resulting ICM file) - colour managed apps use this information to correct colours, non colour manged apps don't - which is exactly why there is such a problem of bad colours in non-colour managed apps on wide-gamut displays. The later is what this thread is actually about. > You "cannot" do this when adjusting your video card...it will > Throw off any hardware calibration where adjusting the OSD on the > Monitor will not. I haven't suggested video card adjustments on top of hardware calibration - video card adjustment is an ALTERNATIVE to hardware calibration; The poor man's hardware calibration if you like. > > Nevertheless, as you rightly highlight - the lack of built in > > adjustment capability is definitely something that needs to be > > considered, because it dictates that you EITHER have to be quite > > knowledgable and skilled in graphics driver adjustments, OR > > preferably have a hardware calibrator device, if you want a well > > adjusted display. > > Once again...you are double profiling when adjusting a video card but > Not when adjusting the OSD. Please try to read posts more carefully (I've highlighted the EITHER, and OR to help you) - there is no double profiling suggested.


	Hi2all, and yes, I'm joining the topic rather late on, but I recently purchased a wide gamut monitor without doing all of my homework... :p The monitor in question is Eizo's S2231W, a 22" S-PVA wide-gamut monitor. I did read a review from a reliable source (namely PRAD) and my own feedback as well as a link to the actual review can be found here: http://www.prad.de/board/thread.php?threadid=37996 I've read through a few Wide-Gamut threads I found here @ DPReview incl. Bullet's several threads involving his personal journey with his 30" HC Dell... . I'm thrilled with the S2231W generally speaking and I "feel like" I'm one notch closer to a WYSIWYG relationship between monitor and printer when working with PS in aRGB :D I do, however, have to contend with the high-saturated colors (mainly reds & greens) and of course, it makes viewing photos outside of P.S. Quite distressing, to say the least. I've since installed Firefox 3 Beta 4 and enjoy it's color-aware abliities but I still turn to Windows XP's built-in image "Preview" SW as well as movies (DVDs) and occasionally catching CNN (via TV Tuner). But on to the purpose of my post: what's the best way to calibrate & profile a wide-gamut monitor that has ample OSD options? I Currently set the monitor to "custom" (other options being sRGB, Movie, Text, etc.) and brightness to a reasonable level (this being a modern LCD...) and then calibrate with Spyder2Express. Since everyone inisists that calibration & profiling are two different things, let me just say that the Spyder2Express first calibrates the monitor to 6500K & 2.2 Gamma (regardless of the monitor's native white point), then creates an ICC profile as well as "updating" the video card's LUT. The effects of updating the LUT are readily seen upon each Windows restart, where the colors / gamma changes "right before your eyes", so to speak. So once again, back to my question. The Eizo has ample OSD controls, such as temperature, gamma, gain (R,G&B), saturation, brightness and contrast. For more specs, see here: http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/s2231w/spec.asp Secondly, the Spyder2 is not geared towards wide-gamut monitors (whatever that means) and Colorvision specifically suggests the Sypder3 is... . Another setback is that the "Express" version is fixed @ 6500K and 2.2 so if I mess with either gamma or temps via the OSD, I don't think the HW calibration will be correct... . I think that about wraps it up. I hardly doubt that I'm the only one with this problem, particularly now that almost every Monitor vendor includes wide-gamut monitor(s) in their product line. I realize that many will be running VISTA and maybe resort to Firefox for their browsing needs, but the rest of us still working with XP will certainly be uncomfortable with the wide-gamut phenomena :p Thx for any suggestions and/or links to more on the topic :D p.s. Yes I know - but no, I don't want to mess with XP's native sRGB file(s) and/or registry entries like Bullet did as I do expect to encounter sRGB photos on the net... Instead, I'm really hoping that someone (such as Microsoft ;) has come up with a more legit workaround, etc :) -- Traveller - Geneve * Melbourne * Miami * Wien


	> > p.s. yes I know - but no, I don't want to mess with XP's native sRGB > File(s) and/or registry entries like Bullet did as I do expect to > Encounter sRGB photos on the net... Instead, I'm really hoping that > Someone (such as Microsoft ;) has come up with a more legit > Workaround, etc :) If you read all his post he never found a real fix and returned the monitor. I returned mine too. You can see how frustrating it was by the..."I found a fix!"..."no, it didn't really work"..."NOW I've found a fix!"..."sorry, that didn't work either" and this goes on for weeks finally ending with a non HC monitor. Dell is well aware of the problems with these monitors and had no problem taking mine back after 10+months. I am surprised you have the same issue with the Ezio. I would adjust the OSD to look as close to calibrated as possible and then run Spyder. I'm > > -- > Traveller - Geneve * Melbourne * Miami * Wien


	Quote: : > ...this goes on for weeks finally ending with a non HC monitor. > ... I am surprised you have the same issue with the Ezio. > I would adjust the OSD to look as close to calibrated as possible > And then run Spyder. I hear you. I've put in enough time as it is already... :( I'm not sure why you're surprised to hear that an Eizo, using a Samsung Wide-Gamut panel, should react better than a Dell (probably also using a Sammy panel, lol). Personally, I'm still not sure how it's possible to truly adjust contrast on an LCD (but I'll assume it is, 'till I hear otherwise). Btw, my "not-so-respected" BenQ FP241W also has provision for contrast adjustment... . Moving on, thx for the suggestion. Many S2231W owners have suggested droping RED by a few % and saturation by around 20%. The thing is, I like what I see in PShop working in an aRGB colorspace and I really don't want to negate that aspect of the monitor - after all, it is one of the reasons I bought it (the other being that it's an Eizo and goes for under 600, thx to the 22" panel). But worst case, I can/ will live with Wide Gamut as I have no problems with my RAW work (via Canon SW), Pshop & even Internet (thx to Firefox). I can still use XP's Preview feature to check the images I plan to work with in terms of composition, subject, focus - pretty much everything but color... :p Finally, for my non-DI "hobbies", I have my other workstation which is equipped with the 24" BenQ FP241W, devoid of saturation... :p p.s. Here's another cool layout for color-aware Browser tests: http://blog.jasonspix.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/cProfile/colorProfile_example.htm If you see the first two images as "split" in two, then you're Browser's not color-aware... -- Traveller - Geneve * Melbourne * Miami * Wien


	"If you are running XP, you can change the system color management ICM file from sRGB to Adobe RGB. I have done that and it worked." Can you help me with that? How did you do it?


	Quote: : > "If you are running XP, you can change the system color management > ICM file from sRGB to Adobe RGB. I have done that and it worked." > > Can you help me with that? How did you do it? http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=24998798 Good luck! -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	Hi I'm considering buying a 2408WFP as I need a 22-24" monitor to go with my macbook. I will do photo editing but only casually, and the majority of use will be for video editing and general browser use. I'm getting a bit scared of this wide gamut issue, and I'd prefer not to worry about colour profiles etc. Is it a big issue, or is it just a minor difference that many people won't notice? if it is a big issue, can someone recommend a 24" monitor in the price range of the dell or lower (£400) that will work nicely in sRGB mode?


	Until all apps are color managed. Here is what you see in non color aware apps vs. PS. The only thing you can do is adjust the color with your video card but then you will not have a properly calibrated monitor. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/mcennis3/spydervs-1.jpg richard Quote: : > Hi > > I'm considering buying a 2408WFP as I need a 22-24" monitor to go > With my macbook. I will do photo editing but only casually, and the > Majority of use will be for video editing and general browser use. > > I'm getting a bit scared of this wide gamut issue, and I'd prefer not > To worry about colour profiles etc. > > Is it a big issue, or is it just a minor difference that many people > Won't notice? > > If it is a big issue, can someone recommend a 24" monitor in the > Price range of the dell or lower (£400) that will work nicely in sRGB > Mode?


	What if I have a camera that shoot in sRGB? Does it make any problems for me then, working in Photoshop and saving as sRGB to keep the same profile throughout will any colors look different and fool me then, or is it only when you have a camera that shoots AdobeRGB and therefor also use AdobeRGB in Photoshop that the problem arises? And if so, for those that shoot AdobeRGB, cant it be as simple as converting to sRGB in Photoshop for webuse and such, and for sending to print just keep the AdobeRGB. Ain't it as easy really? No need to use AdobeRGB for pics you're gonna use on the web or just use in some small album to show on the pc? Cause, sRGB dont show any problems just cause you use a monitor like this with extended colorspace....right? -- http://sebastianfoto.se/


	As most current browsers, IE6/IE7 and Firefox 2, are not color profile aware, all images rendered by those browsers are not color managed. This mistake is not visible on the regular gamut monitors as they render everything as sRGB anyway, to put in an overly simplified way. Now enter the WG monitors. Those new babies can render more saturated colors demanded by the bigger color spaces such as Adobe RGB. If sRGB images are shown without color management on those WG monitors, they will appear oversaturated. It has the same effect assigning the Adobe RGB profile to a untagged sRGB image in PhotoShop. The solution is to have the color management throughout the system. For this to work, every image rendering application must be able to read the color profiles from the images. That brings us to the next issue. What if the images are not tagged with proper profiles? Well, they would be shown incorrectly unless their color space happen to match the monitor's capabilities. Here are 4 possible combinations. 1. Untagged sRGB image -> Regular gamut monitor -> OK 2. Untagged aRGB image -> Regular gamut monitor -> Flat colors (undersaturated) 3. Untagged sRGB image -> Wide gamut monitor -> Oversaturated 4. Untagged aRGB image -> Wide gamut monitor -> OK Here we assume the wide gamut monitor is only able to cover the Adobe RGB space. If they ever come up with a monitor that can support an even bigger color space, such as the ProPhoto RGB, the images in scenario #4 will be shown oversaturated as well. Note the tagged images rendered in the non-color managed applications will have the same effect as untagged images. For now, having color managed browsers such as Firefox 3 and properly tagged images on the web should be the way of the future. Otherwise the carefully crafted sRGB world is about to come to an end with the introduction of the WG monitors. -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	Oh, thanks for the answer. No good news thogh who would want a monitor like this if browsing the web shows one thing and looking at photos in some coloraware app shows another thing :( -- http://sebastianfoto.se/


	I dabbled with a wide gamut monitor (Dell 3007WFP-HC) for about a month because I thought wide gamut certainly must be better since that's what so many high end new monitors were being introduced with. Many, many battles later with calibration problems and expeditions into Safari and Minefield (Firefox 3 beta) for web color accuracy, I returned the 3007WFP-HC and bought a 24" NEC (2490wuxi) standard gamut monitor. Life is good again ... And so much easier. As has been mentioned, it's so nice when all the colors look right and match in every application. I just wish I could find a new high-end 30" sRGB standard gamut monitor - but nobody makes one! The push for wide gamut monitors reminds me of the failed push for Jpeg 2000. A noble idea, but the existing mainstream was too strong for the new format to succeed. Long live sRGB! -- John Cowley


	I have a 3007-HC not because I wanted wide gamut. I didn't (I just wanted the resolution), but I thought I might be able to tame it. But I discovered nothing but hassles. It is boxed and I am processing a return now. I am looking for a sRGB monitor. Which is rare in decent sized panels these days. Thinking about the NEC 2090/2490 as well. The difference between this fight and JPEG2000, is that despite being a terrible idea on current PC's, wide gamut seems to be all you can get, even though it doesn't really work with PC's very well at all. Ugh!. Go away wide Gamut. John Quote: : > I dabbled with a wide gamut monitor (Dell 3007WFP-HC) for about a > Many, many battles later with calibration problems and expeditions > Into Safari and Minefield (Firefox 3 beta) for web color accuracy, I > Returned the 3007WFP-HC and bought a 24" NEC (2490wuxi) standard > Gamut monitor. > > Life is good again ... And so much easier. As has been mentioned, > It's so nice when all the colors look right and match in every > Application.


	John Quote: : > I dabbled with a wide gamut monitor (Dell 3007WFP-HC) for about a > Month because I thought wide gamut certainly must be better since > That's what so many high end new monitors were being introduced with. > > Many, many battles later with calibration problems and expeditions > Into Safari and Minefield (Firefox 3 beta) for web color accuracy, I > Returned the 3007WFP-HC and bought a 24" NEC (2490wuxi) standard > Gamut monitor. > > Life is good again ... And so much easier. As has been mentioned, > It's so nice when all the colors look right and match in every > Application. No, they don't match, they just look less different. Thats only because the difference between sRGB and your monitor profile is less, not because non wide gamut monitors magically colourmanage all applications. If you want them to look the same you need colourmanaged software but then they'd look the same on a wide gamut screen also. Stop blaming the screens, start blaming your software. Web, vista viewer and photoshop all match for me on a wide gamut. Andrew


	Quote: : > > > No, they don't match, they just look less different. > Thats only because the difference between sRGB and your monitor > Profile is less, not because non wide gamut monitors magically > Colourmanage all applications. > If you want them to look the same you need colourmanaged software but > Then they'd look the same on a wide gamut screen also. > Stop blaming the screens, start blaming your software. > Web, vista viewer and photoshop all match for me on a wide gamut. Doesn't really matter where the blame lies the solution is the same. Get a standard gamut panel and everything everywhere just works instead of a patchwork of supported applications (under 1%) and incorrect applications (99%). There is negligible to no advantage of wide gamut for home users and tons of grief.


	Are there any non-TN panels out there that are not wide gamut? TN has its problems, bad viewing-angles and backlight bleeding and bad contrast/shadows and other things. Are there any somewhat higher standard panel monitors that are not wide gamut, or are ALL "higher end" monitors wide gamut? -- http://sebastianfoto.se/


	Quote: : > Are there any non-TN panels out there that are not wide gamut? Yes. See title. I am sure there are others.


	Peter Quote: : > > Quote: : > > Are there any non-TN panels out there that are not wide gamut? > > Yes. See title. I am sure there are others. Thanks :) But I wonder if this has occured since this old monitor was released.... "Although its price will scare off most consumers, we can expect some of its high-end features to start showing up in midrange LCD monitors in the near future." -- http://sebastianfoto.se/


	Quote: : > But I wonder if this has occured since this old monitor was released.... > > "Although its price will scare off most consumers, we can expect some > Of its high-end features to start showing up in midrange LCD monitors > In the near future." More like the midrange has disappeared since then. We have mostly low end TN and high end now.


	Peter Quote: : > > Quote: : > > > > > > No, they don't match, they just look less different. > > Thats only because the difference between sRGB and your monitor > > profile is less, not because non wide gamut monitors magically > > colourmanage all applications. > > If you want them to look the same you need colourmanaged software but > > then they'd look the same on a wide gamut screen also. > > Stop blaming the screens, start blaming your software. > > Web, vista viewer and photoshop all match for me on a wide gamut. > > Doesn't really matter where the blame lies the solution is the same. > Get a standard gamut panel and everything everywhere just works > Instead of a patchwork of supported applications (under 1%) and > Incorrect applications (99%). It doesn't "just work" on a "standard gamut" monitor. They are NOT sRGB either. You have 100 applications for images? The solution is to colormanage the few applications you use, whatever monitor type you have. Asukabooks accept aRGB files and thanks to a wide gamut screen I have a better idea of what it will look like. Andrew


	John Quote: : > > > I just wish I could find a new high-end 30" sRGB standard gamut > Monitor - but nobody makes one! > > > -- > John Cowley Yep. Me too. The Eizo 30" CG301W can emulate sRGB with hardware calibration I believe. But £3000 is a bit too rich for me. David www.davidcolepictures.co.uk


	Now that Firefox 3 final version is out, the problem is finally solved for Wide Gamut LCDs and Internet browsing. Basically the only things missing in Windows now are a light image viewer (Irfanview and Faststone are still not color managed) and a media/video player program. Can you recommend some color managed applications for thos needs? Especially for video I found nothing able to show correct colors; You can still bring movies to acceptable levels lowering saturation on the WG monitor, but color accuracy is not perfect that way. Games are also off, but I find it much less annoying: most of them actually benefit from oversaturation :-)


	I've opened a thread in the retouching forum about color managed applications, trying to gather all information about them. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1006&thread=28345519 -- My photogallery - http://hectoroa.zenfolio.com Learning photography & english :-)


	Only with JPEG/TIFF, see 16Bit ProPhotoRGB example below: http://www.pic-upload.de/20.06.08/k6at5.jpg HowTo: Get newest IrfanView with plugins. Go Options->Properties->Viewing->Tick "Use embedded color profiles for JPG/TIF(Plugin)"


	No, it does not. Irfanview supports translation from the JPG profile to sRGB, but does not consider the monitor profile. With a Wide Gamut display you need JPG->aRGB, not JPG->sRGB. I routinely use Irfanview to display aRGB images (disabling color management in Irfanview, so they're not corrected), but I cannot correctly see sRGB JPGs.


	-nt-


	Quote: : > Now that Firefox 3 final version is out, the problem is finally > Solved for Wide Gamut LCDs and Internet browsing. Yes, I installed Firefox 3 the day it came out. It has been working wonderfully on my Dell 3007WFP-HC WG monitor. The major breakthrough is the end to end color management. FF3 is not only honoring the embedded profiles in the images, but also the monitor profiles. The latter is rarely implemented in non-PhotoShop type of image software until now. > > Basically the only things missing in Windows now are a light image > Viewer (Irfanview and Faststone are still not color managed) and a > Media/video player program. The picture gallery viewer under Vista is monitor profile aware. Hopefully we'll see IrfanView, Firestone or alike to start taking FF3's approach to color management. -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2007 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2007_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	I am bringing this thread back up due to all the new WG monitors coming out. Purchasers should be aware of the limitaions they have for general every day home use and therefor avoid a certain amount of frustration with the new displays. -- Sincerely Ron J


	Quote: : > I am bringing this thread back up due to all the new WG monitors > Coming out. Purchasers should be aware of the limitaions they have > For general every day home use and therefor avoid a certain amount of > Frustration with the new displays. Yes it is ridiculous to move to wide gamut panels without the supporting OS infrastructure in place. My Dell 3007-HC (wide gamut) is thankfully behind me, for the same price I picked up a smaller but much higher quality NEC 2490WUXiSV which is standard gamut. Now all my applications across all my Operating systems (linux and Windows) are consistent.


	Seconded by me. I wish I could find a high quality 26"+ display that was sRGB. I am using a NEC 2690 in its factory set sRGB mode which is far from ideal. David www.davidcolepictures.co.uk


	If you left it in the wide gamut mode as opposed to sRGB, would the color managed applications give you an accurate color rendtion? (Leaving of course the non color managed to be askew.)


	PC color management is garbage. I have a Dell 3007-hc, loading a calibration profile results in correct color in: Photoshop Elements. That is it. Everything else has over-saturated and incorrect looking color. Since calibration profile didn't do it. I tried tweaking the graphics card. I managed to tame desktop apps to almost tolerable levels, still not quite right but tolerable. But now the profile is messed up and unusable in Elements. Games and movies still look oversaturated. Except for a very small set of exceptions, the PC is an sRGB environment, working with non-sRGB displays is mainly grief, or joy for people who like, gaudy, over saturated colors. Unfortunately the latest marketing war is who can have the wides gamut display (and thus most inaccurate colors). Kind of like the other stupid display war about who can make the brightest display, forgetting the human retinas scorched by this silliness. I hate marketing idiots driving technology.


	Peter Quote: : > PC color management is garbage. I have a Dell 3007-hc, loading a > Calibration profile results in correct color in: > > Photoshop Elements. That is it. Everything else has over-saturated > And incorrect looking color. > > Since calibration profile didn't do it. I tried tweaking the graphics > Card. I managed to tame desktop apps to almost tolerable levels, > Still not quite right but tolerable. But now the profile is messed up > And unusable in Elements. > > Games and movies still look oversaturated. > > Except for a very small set of exceptions, the PC is an sRGB > Environment, working with non-sRGB displays is mainly grief, or joy > For people who like, gaudy, over saturated colors. > > Unfortunately the latest marketing war is who can have the wides > Gamut display (and thus most inaccurate colors). Kind of like the > Other stupid display war about who can make the brightest display, > Forgetting the human retinas scorched by this silliness. > > I hate marketing idiots driving technology. What do you mean by loading a calibration profile? Did you use a device on your system or load something That cam with the monitor or of the net? Which Windows are you using.. PC - Sucks is very vague...


	Quote: : > > What do you mean by loading a calibration profile? Did you use a > Device on your system or load something That cam with the monitor or > Of the net? > > Which Windows are you using.. PC - Sucks is very vague... I am using XP(Vista is essentially just as bad). I downloaded two other profiles one from behardware, one from another user. I am not going to buy a calibration device before seeing which applications are color managed. I have 1 such application.


	I am in the market for a new LCD monitor and was considering wide gamut. This thread got me to rethink. I use PS Elements for photo editing, Google Picassa for photo organization, and a Kodak printer for printing. Since I have a need to print, I want a high quality monitor (<$1000 US) and now I am not sure which models to look at. I have been looking at Anandtech specifically the Multi-media and Photo-editing/Web design and I don't do gaming. I am a photo hobbyist that likes to print and I want great pic display and print. I also, use MS Office, surf the web, and do e-mail type stuff as well. Can anyone provide direction as to what to look at now. jr http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y


	Quote: : > I am in the market for a new LCD monitor and was considering wide gamut. > > This thread got me to rethink. > > I use PS Elements for photo editing, Google Picassa for photo > Organization, and a Kodak printer for printing. > > Since I have a need to print, I want a high quality monitor (<$1000 > US) and now I am not sure which models to look at. > > I have been looking at Anandtech specifically the Multi-media and > Photo-editing/Web design and I don't do gaming. I am a photo hobbyist > That likes to print and I want great pic display and print. I also, > use MS Office, surf the web, and do e-mail type stuff as well. > > Can anyone provide direction as to what to look at now. > > Jr > > > Http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y nec 2490 -- Forty Dee paired with the Seventy-Two Hundred IS f4L and the Seventeen-FiftyFive IS f2.8 capped off with B+W MRC UV filters and a few Kaesemann Circular Polarizers... And growing. All safely wrapped and easily carried in a Kata R102 backpack.


	That you suggest looking at? jr


	No, I would be pi$$ed off when I look at my pictures on a monitor at work or elsewhere and realized that my picture looks nothing like it did at home on my wide gamut display. Personally, I am really sick of the whole monitor color variation issue. These monitors should all look exactly the same. They should be standardized for gamma, brightness and color etc. I hate to even put my pictures up on the web because I know the majority of people are seeing something completely different than what I intended. -- Scott A.


	There's a huge range in display performance and the only way to "standardize" would have been to lock in on a green monochrome CRTs from the early days of personal computers - or on some other arbitrary display technology and freeze any improvement from there. Display performance is always in flux and as long as the technology is changing (and the best tech costs more) there won't be standardization. The best you can do is get a good display and calibrate. Hardware is often in front of operating systems and software. It's a force driving improvement in the tools we use. -- BJ Nicholls SLC, UT


	As a graphic designer, having aRGB finally gives me an LCD that can reproduce the colors that I work with. There's only one application that's a problem when running wide gamut for me - that's Microsoft Internet Explorer. The solution for profile aware browsing is Firefox 3 with color management enabled. Indeed, without CM on Explorer, photos often look super saturated and are often inaccurate. Firefox with CM works fine. In a pinch, if I need to check web work via Explorer, I can switch to sRGB via the NEC's controls - then back to hardware profiling. My workaday tools are the Adobe Creative Suite and all those applications are profile aware. Frankly, I don't care much about color accuracy in other applications. For the few that I use with images on occasion, I can use the sRGB workaround. -- BJ Nicholls SLC, UT


	Quote: : > In a pinch, if I need to check web work via > Explorer, I can switch to sRGB via the NEC's controls - then back to > Hardware profiling. > I am thinking of buying the Dell 2408WFP monitor, which is 110% of (?) gamut. I do not think it has a dedicated button to select sRGB like your NEC. But I hope that I will be able to switch between sRGB and a calibrated aRGB profiles using a software utility which came with the i1 display 2 calibrator software. Any thoughts on that? Joe


	Joe Quote: : > I am thinking of buying the Dell 2408WFP monitor, which is 110% of > (?) gamut. > I do not think it has a dedicated button to select sRGB like your NEC. > But I hope that I will be able to switch between sRGB and a > Calibrated aRGB profiles using a software utility which came with > The i1 display 2 calibrator software. > Any thoughts on that? Calibrations adjusts the gamma curve. It doesn't change the gamut. You can't calibrate a different gamut. You make color from your R,G,B primaries. Wide gamut panels have different frequency color primaries that you mix. Those are physically unchangeable. And will never match the primaries needed to produce sRGB.


	Same here. I use a Dell 2408, FF3 with CM and am happy with the results. -- jerryk.smugmug.com


	The problem is not finding a browser that is colour aware. The problem is that if most of your work is for the internet and over 60% of users out there still use IE they will not see your output correctly. Similarly, if most of your work is for the internet it matters not at all that your work looks great on your wide colour gamut display - it will not look right on most displays connected to the internet because most are not yet wide gamut. David


	I'm confused here. Why wouldnt aRGB saved as sRGB look correct in IE7? 1) Edit photos in aRGB using a WG LCD 2) Convert photos to sRGB for web 3) Review converted sRGB photos in Firefox on my WG monitor. Colors should be fine 4) If I review the same converted sRGB photos in IE on MY WG monitor, then colors will be over saturated. BUT...why would OTHER people viewing the same sRGB photos using NON WG monitors see oversaturated colors in IE? Quote: : > The problem is not finding a browser that is colour aware. The > problem is that if most of your work is for the internet and over 60% > Of users out there still use IE they will not see your output > Correctly. Similarly, if most of your work is for the internet it > Matters not at all that your work looks great on your wide colour > Gamut display - it will not look right on most displays connected to > The internet because most are not yet wide gamut. > > David


	After reading and understanding (so I hope) all the above posts, I am still considering purchase of an AdobeRGB capable display: 1) Correct display of colours All my photo applications (both RAW converter/editor and DAM software) support colour management. I am using Vista, that is colour managed. My browser (Firefox3) is colour managed, too. The occasional game beeing oversaturated does not really bother me. I want to edit and view my raws in AdobeRGB and batch convert to sRGB jpegs for delivery. Hence this system/setup is ready for a wider gamut screen, right? 2) Fine adjustments, delta-E, whatever It has been said that using a wide gamut (i.e. AdobeRGB) means that each increment in the R, G and B values means a bigger colour change (as there are more colours but the same number of bits - 256 steps in 8bit colour). This means that fine adjustments might be more difficult in AdobeRGB than sRGB as the minimum step in any colour channel would change the resulting colour too much. Hence, at least 10 bit data path should be used from application to the screen if using AdobeRGB. Else one ends up trading smooth gradation for deeper colour. I happen to have an "old" MSI Geforce 6800 GT, that has dual link DVI :) http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1762 According to Wikipedia, dual link can be used for 48 bit colour, ie. 12 bits per colour channel. Now, If I connect a high end AdobeRGB screen (think 24' ColourEdge and such) to this graphics card, then will my applications really send a high bith depth image to the screen?


	Quote: : > Hence, at least 10 bit data path should be used from application to > The screen if using AdobeRGB. Else one ends up trading smooth > Gradation for deeper colour. > > I happen to have an "old" MSI Geforce 6800 GT, that has dual link DVI :) > Http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1762 > > According to Wikipedia, dual link can be used for 48 bit colour, ie. > 12 bits per colour channel. > > Now, If I connect a high end AdobeRGB screen (think 24' ColourEdge > And such) to this graphics card, then will my applications really > Send a high bith depth image to the screen? Dual link has the bandwidth to support those bit depths, but that doesn't mean anyone is actually doing it. AFAIK, no one is. You also talked about delivery in sRGB. So what is the point/benefit again of wide gamut? I ditched my wide gamut Dell 3007-hc for an sRGB NEC 2490wuxi. I couldn't be happier. The switch between color mangaed and non color managed applications used to be jarring, now it is seamless. It still is primarily an sRGB world, why invite the grief unless you NEED to.


	Well, the reason to want AdobeRGB is very personal: Each time that I see the wonderfull deep colours of evening/night scenes or the deep orange of burning wood and I try to capture that vision in a photograph, I suffer greatly as I know how lacking present display technology is. Only in memory can I preserve those sights. There is no way of telling about that beauty with images. It annoys me. Give me CIELAB and I'll be happy. I don't print. I have abandoned prints and so have all my friends and people I know. On screen the images look better to me. All those people that get images from me are happy, because my dSLR is capable of better images than their point and shoots - esp. In low light. They don't ask for more than "photos". I then send sRGB jpegs. Maybe in ten years time most screens display AdobeRGB, but I myself don't want to wait. If others want, then it is their choice :)


	Is this any different in the Mac world, or is color management and wide-gamut just as much an issue there?


	Rick Quote: : > Is this any different in the Mac world, or is color management and > Wide-gamut just as much an issue there? Yes, I have the same question.


	Quote: : > > Rick Quote: : > > Is this any different in the Mac world, or is color management and > > wide-gamut just as much an issue there? > > Yes, I have the same question. Maybe try a posting in Mac Talk. I don't use Macs so don't really know. I get the impression it is slightly better but not solved completely.


	I have read this thread completely. I am planning to buy the Eizo S2231 W which has the wide gamut PVA. What I understand from the specifications I will be able to use one of the fine contrast options (selectable by a pushbutton under the screen) to switch it to sRGB. It should be possible also to have it switching automatic to sRGB when opening the browser (software that comes with the monitor). So imho this means that major problems regarding switching between aRGB and sRGB are solved by Eizo either manually or automatic. So generally speaking you should not encounter the wide gamuth color problems when changing apps. What remains is after using Photoshop in aRGB you will have to convert to sRGB for most printshops and webpublishing. But more professional printshops accept aRGB work. So what I like to know are my observations and conclusions correct, because than I will order that Eizo S2231W monitor. There is a need for calibration as colors are not fully correct (http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2008/review-eizo-s2231w-part11.html). But the monitor is an excellent allrounder according Prad.de I will be working for the time under Win XP Pro SP3 using a ATI Radeon RX9800 Pro-TD128. System upgrade is planned for next year as my monitor failed a week ago.


	What I forgot to ask is MS Office 2003 color managed? And what about MS office 2007?


	Skipper, has your question been answered elsewhere? I ask because I would like to know about this solution as well. Did you buy the S2231? Quote: : > I have read this thread completely. I am planning to buy the Eizo > S2231 W which has the wide gamut PVA. What I understand from the > Specifications I will be able to use one of the fine contrast options > (selectable by a pushbutton under the screen) to switch it to sRGB. > It should be possible also to have it switching automatic to sRGB > When opening the browser (software that comes with the monitor). So > imho this means that major problems regarding switching between aRGB > And sRGB are solved by Eizo either manually or automatic. So > generally speaking you should not encounter the wide gamuth color > Problems when changing apps. > What remains is after using Photoshop in aRGB you will have to > Convert to sRGB for most printshops and webpublishing. But more > professional printshops accept aRGB work. > So what I like to know are my observations and conclusions correct, > Because than I will order that Eizo S2231W monitor. There is a need > For calibration as colors are not fully correct > (http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2008/review-eizo-s2231w-part11.html). But the monitor is an excellent allrounder according Prad.de > I will be working for the time under Win XP Pro SP3 using a ATI > Radeon RX9800 Pro-TD128. System upgrade is planned for next year as > My monitor failed a week ago. >


	Why not have a wide gamut monitor and say another srgb such as the NEC 2490? Cheers Ron


	As far as i heard, this "sRGB" fine contrast mode is a scam. It doesn't really work. I would gladly hear from someone who has actually experienced the opposite. sv Quote: : > I have read this thread completely. I am planning to buy the Eizo S2231 W which has the wide gamut PVA. What I understand from the specifications I will be able to use one of the fine contrast options (selectable by a pushbutton under the screen) to switch it to sRGB. It should be possible also to have it switching automatic to sRGB when opening the browser (software that comes with the monitor). So imho this means that major problems regarding switching between aRGB and sRGB are solved by Eizo either manually or automatic. So generally speaking you should not encounter the wide gamuth color problems when changing apps.


	Rick Quote: : > Is this any different in the Mac world, or is color management and > Wide-gamut just as much an issue there? If the images are untagged or the applications are not fully color managed, you will see the oversaturated colors on Mac as well. Until all images, icons and videos are properly tagged and opened by fully color managed software, which not only reads the image profile, it also takes the monitor profile into consideration, we will see oversaturated colors if the monitor can support a wider gamut than sRGB, the implied standard. -- Nelson Chen http://pbase.com/nelsonc http://NelsonChenPhotography.com/ 100% RAW shooter with Capture One Pro http://k53.pbase.com/t1/67/574167/4/65617630.Fe1jtlBw.jpg 2008 Colorado Renaissance Festival photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/nelsonc/2008_colorado_renaissance_festival&page=all


	At some point, i have to believe that the "future" for monitors is a much wider color gamut than our current crop of sRGB displays can produce right now. The problems of differences in displays between one PC and another, in a world where images are shared over the net really seems to beg for a standardized solution that allows monitors of differening capabilities to render wide gamut images with the appropriate "intent". From what I understand, it appears that the Mac enviornment has been ahead of the curve here, and the PC worlds attempts to catch up in Vista, have been limited by the slow adoption of the new OS. I just recieved my new (3rd) Vista machine last evening. The prior two Vista machines were disasters, and they are both now running Linux. Hopefully the new machine will fair better. We are looking at the new Lacie monitor which dramatically exceeds the Adobe color space.

Discussion Title: Do you really want a Wide Gamut display?:
Title Keywords: really want Wide Gamut display?: Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Omgili Home

About

FAQ

Plugins

Usenet