Is a $1000 monitor really worth it

Shooter84 · August 25, 2011

I'm in the process of building a new computer system and have come to the point where I'm starting to look at monitors. Im going to run a dual monitor setup and was shocked reading that people are suggesting $1000 and up monitors for photo editing. Is it really worth it? Is $500 worth it either? If I get a color calibration hardware is buying a $200 monitor really going to affect my editing to the point that my work is going to suffer? Just looking for some advice.

Mark Dickinson · August 26, 2011

I too am in the market. Led or LCD. I have a color munki I calibrate with. I was looking at the some on bh, looks like almost all are in the 400 range then two in the apple range. ( thunderbolt )

Newsy · August 26, 2011

No time tonight but I hope to comment on this Friday.

You may want to look up some of my old posts for info on monitors.

Overfocused · August 26, 2011

A color-accurate IPS monitor is definitely worth the extra cash if you're serious about editing. It's a night and day difference when things dont shift around and remain accurate. If you want to use the monitor for videos or games too, I'd recommend a rated response 8ms or under. Some calibrated monitors can get really 'slow' and go up to 12-14ms, and personally anything above 10 or so starts to make me dizzy when I try to watch movies or play games.

mercphoto · August 26, 2011

Is it worth it? In my opinion you haven't told us enough information to make that call for you. How big is your photo business? Primary income, secondary income, profit generating hobby? Are you a high-end business, mainstream business or low cost business? (not making any value judgement there, but it is relevant to a discussion of how to spend business money). If you spend the extra bucks on the high dollar monitor will you even "notice" it? Will having that better monitor pay for itself?

Shooter84 · August 26, 2011

I understand what your asking and the answer is Secondary income and low/mainstream business. I'm not doing 40k model/advertising shoots. I shoot weddings and a lot of sports. Ive been looking into something in this range
http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/samsung-px2370/4014-3174_7-34048108.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/samsung-syncmaster-xl2370/4505-3174_7-33683882.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

If anyone has any suggestions on a good set of monitors Im listening.

arodney · August 26, 2011

If you are printing anything, then yes. Assuming your goal is What You See is What You Get and you pay for printing (outside lab or your own materials).

Newsy · August 26, 2011

Shooter84 wrote: »

I understand what your asking and the answer is Secondary income and low/mainstream business. I'm not doing 40k model/advertising shoots. I shoot weddings and a lot of sports. Ive been looking into something in this range
http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/samsung-px2370/4014-3174_7-34048108.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/samsung-syncmaster-xl2370/4505-3174_7-33683882.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

If anyone has any suggestions on a good set of monitors Im listening.

You're off track already.

Both of those monitors are pseudo 8bit (6bit + AFRC to simulate an 8bit 16.7 miilion color depth) "TN" tft LCD panel units. AFRC = Advanced Frame Rate Control. For image work you want to start off finding a monitor with the best LCD tft panel technology.

LCD PANEL TYPE

In terms of image quality for photo editing, these are the TFT LCD panel types from best to worst:

IPS (newer variants are S-IPS, AS-IPS, H-IPS, e-IPS, P-IPS, etc)
PVA (newer variants are S-PVA, c-PVA)
MVA (newer variants are A-MVA, P-MVA, S-MVA, etc)
TN

If you would like some background on these panels, read this article:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_technologies.htm

IMHO, current IPS and PVA monitors can be very close in image quality with units from the top tier manufacturers (NEC, Eizo, Lacie); IPS panels do show more detail in dark areas of an image but a number of users are finding that middle to low end IPS panels show unwanted "tinting" noticeable on white or gray backgrounds. Others object to the anti-glare treatment on the matte screens of some IPS monitors (gives a "dirty" appearance) but most users get used to this.

PVA panels have an inherent characteristic to "crush blacks". They provide a nice contrasty image somewhat similar to monitors that have a glossy front panel (like low end multi-media monitors or the mid level Apple Cinema Displays) but they do not show as much detail in darker areas as an IPS. They don't have much in the way of tinting complaints as compared to the current generation of IPS monitors and the Anti-Glare coating is not as noticeable.

LG Display makes pretty much all of the current generation of IPS tft panels and supplies these to most of the major name manufacturers of computer monitors. Hence, any monitor with an LG Display IPS panel will have a similar anti-glare treatment. Likewise, Samsung has been the primary supplier of PVA panels to the industry.

Samsung has recently announced a new panel type... S-PLS which looks to be a variation of IPS. There is some hope it will be better with the "tinting" issue.

Here's the difference between what those CNET links are offering (TN panels) versus what you can get in a IPS monitor that will range in price from $189USD to over $3000USD. It is all about viewing angles off centre and about color accuracy on centre. If you show proofs to clients on your monitor, the viewing angle advantage of the IPS and PVA monitors become even more important.

TN tft panel
(per TFT Central BenQ XL2410T review http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm )

IPS tft panel
(per TFT Central NEC EA232w review http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm )

GAMUT

The second most important decision to make is if you're going to buy a monitor that offers a standard sRGB gamut or one that is wide gamut covering both the sRGB and AdobeRGB color spaces.

In North America, you'll find IPS monitors with a sRGB gamut up to about $450USD. At $450 you start to find some budget wide gamut IPS monitors - currently the Dell U2410 or the ASUS PA246Q. Europe has similar products from Hazro and maybe some low end Eizo's we don't get in North America.

Above $700 most IPS monitors are wide gamut - the Dell U2711 and U3011, NEC PA series, and smaller Eizo's and Lacie's. From there you venture into high territory with larger or specialty Eizo's and Lacies.

Wide gamut monitors are problematic. You have to be on top of color management best practices. You will have to use a hardware calibrator of some sort (pretty much necessary even with the sRGB models as well) to ensure color accuracy. Failure to use color managed software will lead to experiencing sRGB images that appear overly saturated and in other cases AdobeRGB images may appear flat. It can be a can of worms for someone new to the technology.

If you print on a high end multi-ink printer and strive for precise print matching, then a wide gamut monitor may be the right tool for you.

If you mostly upload to a web site like Smugmug, Flickr, Zenfolio and others, then sRGB is all you need. If you use an offsite commercial printer for your wedding images, in most cases they want the image sent to them to be in the sRGB space.

There are other considerations for monitors but the above is a start to the conversation.

For future discussion:
Panel Bit Depth - 6 vs 8 vs 10; pseudo vs true
LUT's - bit depth 8, 10, 12, 14; writable vs non-writable
Static Contrast vs Dynamic Contrast
Connectivity - can your current video card supply the bandwidth for a 2560x1440 monitor? (why a 27" or 30" may not work for you)

Some "good" monitor review sites...

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/reviews.php
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/reviews.html

.

Shooter84 · August 26, 2011

Thanks for the information. If you had to recommend a sub 400$ monitor for photo editing what would u recommend?

Newsy wrote: »

You're off track already.

Both of those monitors are pseudo 8bit (6bit + AFRC to simulate an 8bit 16.7 miilion color depth) "TN" tft LCD panel units. AFRC = Advanced Frame Rate Control. For image work you want to start off finding a monitor with the best LCD tft panel technology.

LCD PANEL TYPE

In terms of image quality for photo editing, these are the TFT LCD panel types from best to worst:

IPS (newer variants are S-IPS, AS-IPS, H-IPS, e-IPS, P-IPS, etc)
PVA (newer variants are S-PVA, c-PVA)
MVA (newer variants are A-MVA, P-MVA, S-MVA, etc)
TN

If you would like some background on these panels, read this article:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_technologies.htm

IMHO, current IPS and PVA monitors can be very close in image quality with units from the top tier manufacturers (NEC, Eizo, Lacie); IPS panels do show more detail in dark areas of an image but a number of users are finding that middle to low end IPS panels show unwanted "tinting" noticeable on white or gray backgrounds. Others object to the anti-glare treatment on the matte screens of some IPS monitors (gives a "dirty" appearance) but most users get used to this.

PVA panels have an inherent characteristic to "crush blacks". They provide a nice contrasty image somewhat similar to monitors that have a glossy front panel (like low end multi-media monitors or the mid level Apple Cinema Displays) but they do not show as much detail in darker areas as an IPS. They don't have much in the way of tinting complaints as compared to the current generation of IPS monitors and the Anti-Glare coating is not as noticeable.

LG Display makes pretty much all of the current generation of IPS tft panels and supplies these to most of the major name manufacturers of computer monitors. Hence, any monitor with an LG Display IPS panel will have a similar anti-glare treatment. Likewise, Samsung has been the primary supplier of PVA panels to the industry.

Samsung has recently announced a new panel type... S-PLS which looks to be a variation of IPS. There is some hope it will be better with the "tinting" issue.

Here's the difference between what those CNET links are offering (TN panels) versus what you can get in a IPS monitor that will range in price from $189USD to over $3000USD. It is all about viewing angles off centre and about color accuracy on centre. If you show proofs to clients on your monitor, the viewing angle advantage of the IPS and PVA monitors become even more important.

TN tft panel
(per TFT Central BenQ XL2410T review http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm )

IPS tft panel
(per TFT Central NEC EA232w review http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm )

GAMUT

The second most important decision to make is if you're going to buy a monitor that offers a standard sRGB gamut or one that is wide gamut covering both the sRGB and AdobeRGB color spaces.

In North America, you'll find almost IPS monitors with a sRGB gamut up to about $450USD. At $450 you start to find some budget wide gamut IPS monitors - currently the Dell U2410 or the ASUS PA246Q. Europe has similar products from Hazro and maybe some low end Eizo's we don't get in North America.

Above $700 most IPS monitors are wide gamut - the Dell U2711 and U3011, NEC PA series, and smaller Eizo's and Lacie's. From there you venture into high territory with larger or specialty Eizo's and Lacies.

Wide gamut monitors are problematic. You have to be on top of color management best practices. You will have to use a hardware calibrator of some sort (pretty much necessary even with the sRGB models as well) to ensure color accuracy. Failure to use color managed software will lead to experiencing sRGB images that appear overly saturated and in other cases AdobeRGB images may appear flat. It can be a can of worms for someone new to the technology.

If you print on a high end multi-ink printer and strive for precise print matching, then a wide gamut monitor may be the right tool for you.

If you mostly upload to a web site like Smugmug, Flickr, Zenfolio and others, then sRGB is all you need. If you use an offsite commercial printer for your wedding images, in most cases they want the image sent to them to be in the sRGB space.

There are other considerations for monitors but the above is a start to the conversation.

For future discussion:
Panel Bit Depth - 6 vs 8 vs 10; pseudo vs true
LUT's - bit depth 8, 10, 12, 14; writable vs non-writable
Static Contrast vs Dynamic Contrast
Connectivity - can your current video card supply the bandwidth for a 2560x1440 monitor? (why a 27" or 30" may not work for you)

Some "good" monitor review sites...

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/reviews.php
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/reviews.html

.

Newsy · August 26, 2011

Shooter84 wrote: »

Thanks for the information. If you had to recommend a sub 400$ monitor for photo editing what would u recommend?

Probably the HP ZR24w

- 24" 1920x1200
- HP has a couple of different names for the tft panel technology but it is likely an e-IPS type.
- sRGB gamut
- true 8bit panel and 8bit non-writeable LUT
- calibrates well
- http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_zr24w.htm
- http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2010/review-hp-zr24w.html

or the new Dell U2412

- 24" 1920x1200
- e-IPS type tft panel
- sRGB gamut
- 6bit +AFRC panel
- 8bit non-writeable LUT ?? (I think so but...)
- very new, only one review from one of my preferred sites atm
- http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1312883832

You do have a calibrator, right?

A couple of points.

With a dual monitor system it is best if you have the brightness on both monitors close to identical, especially if you will use both for image work.

However, you don't have to have identical monitors on both sides of the dual monitor system. Lot's of people have a good quality IPS monitor for viewing the image and doing the color work and the second monitor is a lower quality TN panel as it is only used for holding tool menus and having open email, browsers, etc.. You'll still want both monitors similar in brightness as it is easy on the eyes and will have less affect on perception of brightness levels when you are adjusting image levels.

Hence, if you don't already have one, get a calibrator that has the feature of a dedicated screen/module for you to key in precise white luminance values and then a series of screens guide you through adjusting to that target. Saves a lot of time and frustration. The Spyder3 Elite offers this as does the new i1Display Pro. My older i1Display 2 offered this. Imho, well worth the extra $60 to $80 to buy one of these than the next cheapest model that does not offer the full features in their software.

.

Mark Dickinson · September 11, 2011

Those don't get into really for LED backlit, i guess they'd be the same.

Mark Dickinson · September 11, 2011

Whats the thought
http://www.buy.com/pr/product.aspx?sku=223414493

Manufacturer: Dell
Mfg Part#: 469-1137
Buy.com Sku: 223414493
UPC: 884116064244
UPC 14: 00884116064244
Buy.com Sales Rank: 820

Built-in Devices USB Hub
USB Yes
DVI Yes
VGA Yes
DisplayPort Yes
Product Type LCD Monitor
Manufacturer Part Number 469-1137
Manufacturer Website Address www.dell.com
Manufacturer Dell, Inc
Product Model U2412M
Product Name UltraSharp U2412M Widescreen LCD Monitor
Product Line UltraSharp
Brand Name Dell
Package Contents
UltraSharp U2412M Widescreen LCD Monitor
Power Cable
DVI Cable
USB Cable
VGA Cable
Drivers and Documentation Media
Quick Setup Guide
Safety Information
Green Compliance Yes
Green Compliance Certificate/Authority TCO Displays 5.2
Energy Star
EPEAT Gold
TCO '05
Color Black
VESA Mount Compatible Yes
VESA Mount Standard 100 x 100
Input Voltage 110 V AC
220 V AC
Operating Power Consumption 72 W
Standby Power Consumption 500 mW
Aspect Ratio 16:10
Mount Type Wall Mountable
Screen Size 24"
Screen Mode WUXGA
Number of Screens 1
HDCP Support Yes
Horizontal Viewing Angle 178°
Vertical Viewing Angle 178°
Maximum Response Time 8 ms
Backlight Technology LED
Adjustable Display Angle Yes
Adjustable Display Height Yes
Adjustable Display Pivot Yes
Contrast Ratio 1000:1
Brightness 300 Nit
Color Support 16.7 Million Colors
Maximum Resolution 1920 x 1200
Standard Warranty 3 Year Limited

Newsy · September 11, 2011

Mark Dickinson wrote: »

Those don't get into really for LED backlit, i guess they'd be the same.

I don't understand what you are trying to communicate here.
.

Newsy · September 11, 2011

Mark Dickinson wrote: »

DVI Yes
VGA Yes
DisplayPort Yes

Product Type LCD Monitor
Manufacturer Dell, Inc
Product Model U2412M
Product Name UltraSharp U2412M Widescreen LCD Monitor
Aspect Ratio 16:10
Screen Size 24"

Horizontal Viewing Angle 178° .......... key spec; indicates an IPS or PVA panel
Vertical Viewing Angle 178° ............. key spec; indicates an IPS or PVA panel

Backlight Technology LED

Adjustable Display Angle Yes .......... nice to have
Adjustable Display Height Yes ......... nice to have
Adjustable Display Pivot Yes ......... not seen on all monitors; works well on an IPS panel

Contrast Ratio 1000:1 ....... almost meaningless

Brightness 300 Nit .................. not too bright!
Color Support 16.7 Million Colors .... 6bit + AFRC; not a true 8bit but may not be an issue
Maximum Resolution 1920 x 1200

My comments in blue above. I retained the key points from your original copy and paste.

Re 6bit + AFRC
Typically people want a monitor with a true 8bit or pseudo 10bit panel to minimize banding. I read a lot of monitor reviews and have not seen much at all re banding with the current generation of 6bit + AFRC e-IPS monitors.

One of the issues with the HP ZR24w is that it is a very bright monitor and even with brightness set to zero, most technical sites are unable to get the monitor below 115 cd/m2 without reducing with the RGB sliders (something you don't want to set too low).

Note the comments on brightness in this recently released review....
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2412m.htm

"The luminance range of the screen was very impressive and the brightness control allowed you to vary the W-LED backlight intensity from 339 cd/m2 at maximum 100%, all the way down to a very low 46 cd/m2 at 0%. In fact the maximum brightness was a little above even the quoted maximum brightness spec of the screen (300). There was 293 cd/m2 worth of adjustment range available here which should easily allow you to obtain a comfortable setting for your working environment. Even those who prefer very low luminance settings should be fine here with the lower range available. A setting of around 26% should offer you a luminance of ~ 120 cd/m2."

and....
"Testing the screen with various colour gradients showed smooth transitions with no sign of any obvious colour banding."

Panel uniformity (a measure of the back light design) is pretty good. I've seen samples from other sites and they're certainly no where near the worst I've seen.

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=88&mo1=882&p1=11597&ma2=35&mo2=852&p2=10778&ph=15

Here's a German review that rates the U2412 as "Good". A "Very Good" from Prad indicates an top monitor as I've never seen an "Excellent" from them. The English translation usually is released several weeks after the German one. Use Google Translate or similar page by page for now.

http://www.prad.de/new/monitore/test/2011/test-dell-u2412m.html

The U2412H appears to be a pretty good value in a sRGB gamut IPS panel monitor - certainly the range of brightness adjustment is a big plus over several other recent budget IPS monitors.

.

Mark Dickinson · September 11, 2011

Thank you for that update, I did order two of them after reading and translating most of that. I have a color munki too so I just didn't know if there was a big differences with a traditionally lit lcd, vs the led backlit and there was so little information. I think it was focusing on that the LED can turn off areas to make an almost black screen, vs a colorless traditional lit where it seems a bit grey.

Thank you again for that info though!

geralds34 · September 14, 2011

U2410 for $420 or U2412M for $320. Which would you choose? I need another IPS screen at my secondary location, and currently use the 2209WA as my primary photo monitor.

Manfr3d · September 14, 2011

Shooter84 wrote: »

I'm in the process of building a new computer system and have come to the point where I'm starting to look at monitors. Im going to run a dual monitor setup and was shocked reading that people are suggesting $1000 and up monitors for photo editing. Is it really worth it? Is $500 worth it either? If I get a color calibration hardware is buying a $200 monitor really going to affect my editing to the point that my work is going to suffer? Just looking for some advice.

If you buy a NEC or Eizo 24" for 1000$ it is worth it. Todays Apple displays are in the same league as the Dell ultrasharp series. They are workable but not as good as the other two brands I mentioned (and also not as expensive). As usual you get what you pay for. A colorimeter (iOne, Spyder3, etc.) ist a must regardless of the monitor you choose. Trust me, you don't want to go back like me and reedit all your good photos the day you finaly decide to buy a colorimeter and suddenly see how far off your images were

arodney · September 14, 2011

Manfr3d wrote: »

If you buy a NEC or Eizo 24" for 1000$ it is worth it. Todays Apple displays are in the same league as the Dell ultrasharp series.

Exactly! The NEC and Eizo units are simply in another class, therefore the price of any other similar sized display system. Apple, nothing special. When you consider the mating of a very good, high bit panel, with software and an instrument to fully take advantage of these electronics for calibration and profiling, you soon see why Eizo and NEC SpectraView’s are popular despite higher prices for those that are concerned about the quality and accurate repeatability of their display systems.

Newsy · September 14, 2011

geralds34 wrote: »

U2410 for $420 or U2412M for $320. Which would you choose? I need another IPS screen at my secondary location, and currently use the 2209WA as my primary photo monitor.

These are very different monitors.

The U2410 is a wide gamut as the native gamut of the monitor encompasses both the standard sRGB color space and the AdobeRGB color space.

The U2412M offers only a standard sRGB gamut.

Of the two, for most people I would suggest the U2412M due the easy to use sRGB gamut. The problem with the U2410 is that most people don't have a clue what "color management" is, don't have color managed software to support color management, nor do they have their own hardware calibrator to calibrate and profile their monitor. Without proper color management and use of a calibrated ICC profile, what you see on your monitor is as likely to NOT be reality as it is to be more accurate due it supports a wide gamut.

Furthermore, the U2410 has had all kinds of issues since it was introduced and of these, the one that still to this day is a bane to users, is the tinting issue. Now, the tinting issue can happen with any current monitor that uses an IPS panel supplied by LG Display but the Dell U2410 really had a lot of bad press on this issue. FYI... the tinting issue is where the screen shows green on the left and red on the right.

On paper the U2410 is the superior monitor:

wider gamut
pseudo 10bit panel (i.e. 8bit + AFRC to simulate a 10bit color depth) vs pseudo 8bit in the U2412M
12bit non-writeable LUT vs 8bit??
great connectivity (the U2412 lacks HDMI)

And if you can get it for low $400's, I'd be tempted too. But for $500, I'd look to the new ASUS ProArt PA246Q over the Dell U2410. The PA246Q has almost identical specs to the U2410.

If..... big IF.... you must have WYSIWYG of your images and your body of work is inclusive of rich colorful subjects (sunsets, flowers, birds) AND you do your own printing on a high end multi-ink wide gamut printer AND you have a controlled editing studio for precision print matching (i.e. 5000K calibrated through out) AND you work in the AdobeRGB space either from JPEG's captured in that color space or via images pulled from RAW files.... then for sure a wide gamut monitor is the way to go.

As of this morning my second monitor here, a S-PVA, which I use for holding my tool bars and other windows, has died. Either the CCFL has gone or the power converter that drives the CCFL has died. My primary monitor is also a Dell 2209WA. I'm now debating whether to get a cheap TN to fill in or get the U2412M and use it as my main monitor and then use the 2209WA as the #2. I game a fair bit (FPS's) and the 2209WA has been better than the old S-PVA but would a TN be that much better? But I also have to replace the 6 year old family PC here and I want to get a NAS for images and my current photo PC is no longer cutting edge for the latest games or processing the super large files that the new sensors create. A new DSLR body is pending too but can wait. Decisions decisions....

Overfocused · September 14, 2011

Newsy wrote: »

Furthermore, the U2410 has had all kinds of issues since it was introduced and of these, the one that still to this day is a bane to users, is the tinting issue.

I second this. I ordered one that was fairly bad and had it swapped with the 1-day warranty switch. This second copy (a new revision) is fairly even with a splotch of slight red tint on the bottom center. At first it was annoying but I read on how many monitors were really bad and I'm OK with it since I want the monitor for more than just editing. Splotch included, it still beats the hell out of any TFT monitor since color shifting isn't an issue. For the price and performance in other applications like movies and games I have %99.9 gotten over the splotch since it really only is obvious in editing B&W images with lots of midtone greys. If its just for dead accurate photo editing though, I'd say look elsewhere.

Newsy wrote: »

If..... big IF.... you must have WYSIWYG of your images and your body of work is inclusive of rich colorful subjects (sunsets, flowers, birds) AND you do your own printing on a high end multi-ink wide gamut printer AND you have a controlled editing studio for precision print matching (i.e. 5000K calibrated through out) AND you work in the AdobeRGB space either from JPEG's captured in that color space or via images pulled from RAW files.... then for sure a wide gamut monitor is the way to go.

I answered yes to all of these AND it makes me sound like a terribly technically obsessed person!

However, I disagree with needing a high gamut printer etc. for it to be a benefit. Viewing and adjusting the photo on a calibrated wide gamut will still end up in a more accurate conversion in the end - even if the end result is a shrunken gamut. The same goes for image detail and audio editing. In audio and photos starting big and uncompressed will always have a better sounding/looking compressed end-product. In the audio industry if you have the option, you always record lossless 96KHz since audio compressed from a 96khz source still sounds better than audio compressed from a 48KHz source. As for photos, personally I use a MKII and printing a 21MP image down-sampled to an 8x10 still looks better than if I had taken the photo at 10MP and printed an 8x10 out of it. Starting with more always brings a higher quality end-result; some times negligible but other times it does make a big difference.

Newsy · September 14, 2011

my caveat was the "for sure" in "then for sure a wide gamut monitor is the way to go".

Anything less and you have to decide how much benefit it brings you and if it is worth the expense in $$$ and in time required to figure out color management issues.

arodney · September 15, 2011

Overfocused wrote: »

Viewing and adjusting the photo on a calibrated wide gamut will still end up in a more accurate conversion in the end - even if the end result is a shrunken gamut.

Not necessarily. I’m a big fan of wide gamut everything but that there is a price to be paid, especially on a display where as yet, we don’t have a full high bit path from OS, application and display (we do have high bit display panels and that’s very necessary with wide gamut units).

The wider the gamut, be it a display or a working space, the more we need additional bits. The other issue is the colorimetric distance between two colors. On a wide gamut display, with say an image of a bride in a wedding dress, the image gamut isn’t that wide. The space between say R89/G14/B24 and R90/G14/B24 is wider on a wide gamut display than an sRGB like display. The deltaE values are higher. So precision work with subtle colors is actually more difficult to see.

Think of sRGB as being a half inflated balloon with 16.7 million colors. Now think of Adobe RGB as the same balloon blown up twice the size. The space between the tiny points is wider! Again, the colorimetric distance is farther apart. There’s no totally free lunch here. Wide gamut displays are great, but they are not necessarily ideal for editing subtle colors. Fortunately the better and more expensive wide gamut displays have means to simulate a smaller gamut.

Overfocused · September 16, 2011

A lot of this is going backwards against my logic here so I'm just going to work through this

arodney wrote: »

we don’t have a full high bit path from OS, application and display

First question... what OS and application are you talking about?

OS color display has been available in 32 bits since windows 95, PS specifically has 16 and 32 bit color document display/edit modes, and the U2410 monitor I use has 14 bits/color and it can fully display AdobeRGB - it's even got an AdobeRGB preset profile in its firmware. (as well as sRGB) So, technically I see no such display limitation. I just see this display. lol!

arodney wrote: »

Think of sRGB as being a half inflated balloon with 16.7 million colors. Now think of Adobe RGB as the same balloon blown up twice the size. The space between the tiny points is wider! Again, the colorimetric distance is farther apart. There’s no totally free lunch here. Wide gamut displays are great, but they are not necessarily ideal for editing subtle colors. Fortunately the better and more expensive wide gamut displays have means to simulate a smaller gamut.

Second question... aren't we just cramming more smaller differences into the same size plane... similar to cramming more pixels into a camera sensor?

To my understanding the balloon is actually the color plane itself, not the representation of the gamut that's inside the plane. The color gamut plane itself never changes size - only the gamut representation shifts within the plane changes since we're putting more units into the same overall available space. Data-wise it may not be smaller, but visually they are smaller units and are more compressed.

arodney · September 16, 2011

First, OS X, 2nd, depending on who you ask (in my case, the PM of a high end high bit display), the application used most, Photoshop. For this to work fully, all three (OS, App and Graphic system) have to support the wider bit depth.

Second question... aren't we just cramming more smaller differences into the same size plane... similar to cramming more pixels into a camera sensor?

Sensor? I thought we were talking about a display (or a color space). If so, the wider the difference due to the size, without more precision, the wider the colorimetric difference in two values.

Overfocused · September 16, 2011

arodney wrote: »

First, OS X, 2nd, depending on who you ask (in my case, the PM of a high end high bit display), the application used most, Photoshop. For this to work fully, all three (OS, App and Graphic system) have to support the wider bit depth.

You initially said a full bit-path wasn't available yet - that's what confused me.

arodney wrote: »

Sensor? I thought we were talking about a display (or a color space). If so, the wider the difference due to the size, without more precision, the wider the colorimetric difference in two values.

I was making an analogy to cramming more values into the same size space (pixels in physical space instead of colors on a table) With calibration this monitor (U2410) has the precision and can display %100 AdobeRGB gamut, so I don't know how that is ever a negative in terms of accuracy. The whole point of this monitor is to edit subtle colors more accurately.

arodney · September 16, 2011

Overfocused wrote: »

You initially said a full bit-path wasn't available yet - that's what confused me.

My understanding is the path from OS to application to the display is not fully high bit. Going high bit to 8bit per color to high bit. That’s not necessarily useless but its not the same as a full high bit path. My understanding is that is not the case. I believe even with Lion, its not the case and I believe based on conversations with an engineer, the bottleneck is Photoshop (and other applications although PS is the key app we’d want).

I was making an analogy to cramming more values into the same size space (pixels in physical space instead of colors on a table) With calibration this monitor (U2410) has the precision and can display %100 AdobeRGB gamut, so I don't know how that is ever a negative in terms of accuracy. The whole point of this monitor is to edit subtle colors more accurately.

With the lower gamut display, the colorimetric differences in two color values is smaller than in a wider gamut display.

Best to copy and paste the old Karl Lang, Betterlight post (note points 2&3):

Here's an in-depth reply (from the Betterlight forum):

Greetings, fellow betterlight users. I lurk here and I try to keep my
mouth shut ;-) I can't spend too much time on this right now so
forgive me if I don't respond to questions quickly. For those of you
who don't know me I was the architect of the Sony Artisan, the Radius
PressView, ColorMatch, ProSense and many other products. I have worked
with display technology both CRT and LCD for the last 15 years.

Color accurate LCDs pose many problems. I will not argue the CRT vs LCD
debate. Suffice to say there are elements of a calibrated CRT that
still can't be matched by any LCD - available - and there are also
elements of LCD technology that exceed CRTs. We are improving things
at a rapid pace. I expect within 2-3 years to be able to finally feel
comfortable stating that we have an all around superior product in the
LCD space.

I am writing this email to attempt to dispel some myths and provide
some guidance for your LCD purchasing. You can't buy a good CRT any
more, the only ones left are of poor quality because the cost has been
reduced so much all the expensive quality components are not used
anymore. There was a reason that some CRTs cost 2-3K - the parts were
very expensive. Now the analog electronics use VLSI to reduce cost,
resulting in poor comparative quality.

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.

2) More bits in the display does not fix this problem. 10 bit LUTs, 14
Bit 3D LUTs, 10 bit column drivers, time-domain bits, none of these
technologies will solve problem 1. Until the path from photoshop to the
pixel is at least 10 bits the whole way, I advise sticking to a display
with something close to ColorMatch or sRGB.

3) Unless the display has "TRUE 10 bit or greater 1D LUTs that are
8-10-10" user front panel controls for color temp, blacklevel and gamma
are useless for calibration and can in fact make things worse. An
8-10-8 3D LUT will not hurt things and can help achieve a fixed
contrast ratio which is a good thing.

Only Mitsubishi/NEC displays with "GammaComp" have 8-10-8 3D LUTs at
this time. Some Samsung displays may have this I don't test many of
their panels as the performance in other areas has been lacking.

Only the Eizo 210, 220 and NEC2180WG have 8-10-10 paths. If you really
want to know... the path in the Eizo is "8-14bit3D-8-10bit1D-10" go
figure that one out ;-) The 2180WG has an actual 10 bit DVI interface
with a 10-10-10 path but nothing supports it so you can't use it yet -
but for $6500 your ready when it does ;-)

Overfocused · September 17, 2011

Ok that specifies it bits better, lol.

However, now that the gaps/glitches are addressed with my thinking I can still say that the full bit technology is actually still available now and can be done for under $1200 if you have Win7 and PS CS4 or CS5. Windows 7 has native 10 bit/channel and 16 bit/channel color support via displayport (sometimes hdmi 1.3) and PS CS4/CS5 has 10 bit support via OpenGL drawing.

A true 10bit/channel monitor - Dell u2711 ~$800 or 2709w ~$1100

10 bit video Card - $100

AMD's Step by step guide for 10-bit display

Now I really want one, lol

Newsy · September 17, 2011

oh to stir the pot...

You are aware that the panel of the Dell U2410, U2711, U3011, NEC PA241w, ASUS PA246Q, and others are almost certainly not a true 10bit panel?

They are 8bit panels which use AFRC (Advanced Frame Rate Control) to simulate a 10bit 1.04+ billion color depth.

Pseudo 10bit is what I call them. From what I have read, they seem to work well to keep banding to a minimum.

arodney · September 17, 2011

Overfocused wrote: »

Ok that specifies it bits better, lol.
However, now that the gaps/glitches are addressed with my thinking I can still say that the full bit technology is actually still available now and can be done for under $1200 if you have Win7 and PS CS4 or CS5.

How would one verify this (a full path)?

Overfocused · September 18, 2011

Newsy wrote: »

oh to stir the pot...

You are aware that the panel of the Dell U2410, U2711, U3011, NEC PA241w, ASUS PA246Q, and others are almost certainly not a true 10bit panel?

They are 8bit panels which use AFRC (Advanced Frame Rate Control) to simulate a 10bit 1.04+ billion color depth.

Pseudo 10bit is what I call them. From what I have read, they seem to work well to keep banding to a minimum.

Yeah thats why I left mine out, lol. The 2 listed are said by Dell to be though. It does very well with banding and has been worth keeping over any TFT panels. If the 2 newer ones from dell aren't true 10 bit they are really misrepresenting their tech sheets and need to revise it. Even so, I use HDMI 1.3 and the colors are extremely vivid and broadly represented. It's still nice to look at

My next monitor will definitely be a true 10 bit though.

(edit) I'd go with something like this Lacie instead for true 10 bit - Monitor

arodney wrote: »

How would one verify this (a full path)?

The full path on a computer to output is OS -> Software -> Video output -> Display. The 10 bit supportive OS (Windows 7), 10 bit enabled software Software (CS4/CS5 via OpenGL), output via 10 bit video card (ATI firepro etc) onto a 10 bit display (Lacie has nice ones for the price). It's all there

arodney · September 18, 2011

Newsy wrote: »

oh to stir the pot...

You are aware that the panel of the Dell U2410, U2711, U3011, NEC PA241w, ASUS PA246Q, and others are almost certainly not a true 10bit panel?.

According to the product manager, the PA241w is 10 bits in the panel:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50758.0

3. The PA231W has an 8 bit panel. It still outputs to a higher bit depth using FRC dithering to get more than 8 bits. So you can actually see the difference between 8 and 10 bits on 10 bit DisplayPort (use the 10 bit DisplayPort demo application we have posted on the NEC website). All of the other PA models have 10 bit panels.

Is a $1000 monitor really worth it

Comments