Wide-gamut displays and Thunderbolt

I returned an ASUS PA279Q wide-gamut monitor because several important advertised functions (Adobe RGB and sRGB modes) were not supported through the Thunderbolt connection on my 2013 MacBook Pro Retina (15”). ASUS support explained to me that the Thunderbolt port output was YUV rather than RBG and their calibrated modes were disabled with that output. The monitor worked perfectly on a 2009 non-Thunderbolt MacBook Air through the mini-DisplayPort.
I am now considering the NEC PA272W but it appears to be the same panel as the ASUS monitor. Could anyone confirm that the NEC can utilize its Adobe RGB and sRGB functions when connected by a mini-DisplayPort cable through a Thunderbolt port?
Or could anyone recommend another wide-gamut display that works for sure through a mini-DisplayPort/Thunderbolt connection…
Would you consider the Apple Thunderbolt Display for critical color work?
Thanks.

chris.dg wrote:
So I am curious how well the sRGB mode works? I've read reports on other NEC wide-gamut monitors that when switched into sRGB mode you lose a bit of luminance, that the reds over oversaturated, and general desktop/browser colors are obviously not "normal". Have you noticed anything of the sort with your new PA272, or in sRGB mode is it still a cream of the crop display?
I have not noticed anything odd about sRGB mode. The problems you mentioned, where colors can look horribly oversaturated or shifted, I have seen (or seen documented by others) when the monitor is in Adobe RGB mode. But that is not the fault of the monitor at all. It is always the fault of the OS or an application not adapted to work with such a wide color space, mistakenly assuming the monitor is sRGB. The colors look fine in high-end graphics apps even when the OS X desktop and web browsers look oversaturated.
But like Charles says, other features compensate for this. For example, the Adobe RGB and sRGB modes are just two of the built-in presets for the (highly accurate and factory verified) internal calibration. But you also get to store a number of your own presets. I do not even use the factory Adobe RGB and sRGB presets. I made two of my own. One I calibrated for "widest possible" gamut for photo work, at a certain luminance, the other an "sRGB emulation" preset at a completely different luminance. Because I didn't agree with the luminance of the factory presets. When you make a preset you can set the luminance, white point, gamut, etc. so if you don't like the factory presets it doesn't matter, just make your own. (Note: I am using the PA272-SV with one of the calibrator devices that actually talks to the internal monitor circuitry, so I am not sure how well this works if you get the more commonPA272 model without it and use a cheaper calibrator that only creates a profile without talking to the monitor.)
The factory Adobe RGB and sRGB presets are very useful if you don't want to get into customizing the color specifications, but any limitations they have are easily understood and remedied if you have some knowledge of color management concepts and have a compatible integrated calibrator.
What you might glean from this is that the true value of the PA272 is if you are an experienced graphics user who knows enough about color to get the most out of the monitor. If you are a casual user who just wants to flip back and forth between sRGB and Adobe RGB once in a while, things might not always work as expected and a more conventional monitors could have been a better deal. If you understand how the PA272 is designed relative to color science, and in terms of how it's an internal calibration compared to the external profiling of most monitors, the sRGB mode makes a lot of sense.
chris.dg wrote:
The PA272 has a number of key features for me: the 2560x1600 native resolution, the built-in KVM switch, DisplayPort, wide-gamut for when I want it,etc. But the only thing holding me back is whether or not I should simply stick with a "normal" gamut range monitor because that is where I'll spend most of my time. Cost is not so much of an issue, i just want the best of both worlds, if it even exists.
Although you said cost is not an issue there seem to be a decent selection of monitors out there that would get you similar features, without wide gamut, for a lot less money. Monitors with that resolution, DisplayPort, pivoting, etc. are now widely available.
One last note: Minor problems have been observed with these monitors in OS X Mavericks. I think they started turning up in 10.9.2. It still performs the same but some things don't work right and it looks like Apple's fault:
OS X 10.9.2 Breaks Display Support with NEC Displays: Sleep, 90° Rotation Failure
Apparently all is needed is for Apple to fix it in the next release, whenever that is. A later post on that same blog indicates that a fix may be coming from Apple. Again, these problems do not stop the monitor from doing its job so if you want one you should still buy it.

Similar Messages

Best way to configure Photoshop workflow settings when source photos are shot in AdobeRGB, edited using a wide gamut display, and output to sRGB?

Being able to quickly produce finished photos is of importance with the majority of my photography work. Therefore I shoot, process, and deliver JPEG files. For this time sensitive workflow there is no benefit to my clients by my shooting RAW. I do want to be able to accommodate any possible future uses of the photos, so I shoot using the Adobe RGB color space. The output for my clients are JPEG images for use on the Web, therefore sRGB. I currently used a wide gamut display (NEC PA302W) with a 24-bit graphics card. (I plan on upgrading to a 30-bit card sometime in the future.)
I've noticed that in Internet Explorer the reds in my finished photos are overly intense on my display. My photos look fine in other web browsers on my display. This situation has me concerned as I do not know exactly why it is happening since my photos have the sRBG color profile embedded and IE supports embedded color profiles. If anything, I would think the reds would be overly intense in other applications that do not support embedded color profiles.
Please let me know if my workflow can be improved, outside of shooting RAW and using a 30-bit display:
Shoot JPEG photos in Adobe RBG color space
Edit photos in Photoshop using wide gamut display, 24-bit
Color Settings: Monitor Color (Monitor RGB - PA302W, calibrated)
Save for Web, JPEG, Embed Color Profile, Convert to sRGB
While working in Photoshop the reds appear fine. When saving for the Web and previewing 'Monitor Color' the reds are intense, when previewing 'Internet Standard RGB (No Color Management)' the reds appear fine. The final saved images look fine with the exception of when displayed in IE, which supports embedded color profiles- Color Management.

You're rapidly making a mess out of this. Stop, sit back, and stop thinking there's a "problem" to "fix". There isn't - you just need to use software that is color managed. That disqualifies IE right off. Stop using it, throw it away. It's useless with wide gamut displays. Use Firefox, which has proper color management.
OK. Save For Web in sRGB, embed profile. So far so good. But:
Don't ! set your working space to Monitor Color!. That turns off display color management which is the very last thing you want with a wide gamut monitor. You could sort of get away with that with a standard gamut monitor, because it's not all that different from sRGB anyway. So you wouldn't notice the difference (but it's there). The fact that your Adobe RGB files look right in Photoshop is purely coincidental. Any other profile will look wrong.
With a wide gamut display you absolutely and unconditionally need a fully color managed pipeline. That means 1. an embedded document profile, 2. a valid display profile (Spectraview or other calibrator), and 3. an application that reads both profiles and does the conversion from one to the other as the image is sent to the display.
See, it's not just the document profile. That's half of it. The other half is the display profile. IE doesn't use the display profile, instead substituting sRGB. And that's very wrong with that monitor. Firefox is fully color managed if there is an embedded document profile. But it can be configured to color manage even if the image is untagged (and a lot of material on the web is untagged). It does this by assigning sRGB to the image.
To configure this - and you really need that with a wide gamut monitor - type "about:config" without the quotes in the address bar and hit reload. Scroll down to gfx.color_management.mode, and change it from 2 to 1. Relaunch. All web material will now appear correctly regardless.

AE, ICC color profiles, QuickTime player and wide gamut displays

Hey there!
I was inspired by @AdobeAE 's recent tweet about color management to look further into the subject. We've historically not bothered with it, but are keen to enter the color managed world!
I started in Photoshop, doing tests with working spaces and destination spaces to get my head around how the whole thing works. One thing I quickly gathered was that our Monitors (Eizo S2243W) are wide gamut, which can create problems. For example, if you make an image in the sRGB space in PS, then save it out as a jpeg without embedding the profile, the colours become over-saturated, as any viewing application won't know how to translate the colors. Images created in the Adobe 1998 did not display the same shift when saved 'untagged' - I assume because the gamut of the monitor is closer to Adobe 1998, so even if no transformation occurs the colours are perceptually similar.
For still images all this is fine though, as you can always embed the profile so the viewing app knows how to translate the colours for your particular display.
The problem comes with video. It seems as though it is not possible to embed a color profile with, say, a ProRes QuickTime. If you create a comp in AE using the sRGB colour space, then export the movie you'll potentially have the same over saturated colour problem when viewing the resulting file on a wide gamut display.
So how is one supposed to overcome this, except for turning colour management off?
Any help greatly apprecaited!
Cheers, sCam
Simon Cam
Creative Technical Director
Superglue
http://www.wearesuperglue.com

Not too many people will be watching your movie on a wide-gamut screen. You'd be better off working in an SRGB mode, if your monitor allows. Colour magement is a poisened chalice, wether you are working with still images or movies. The internet is not colour-managed and everything wide gamut will look oversaturated and garish.

Is it possible the current Mac Mini 2.7 Ghz i7 with two full-resolution displays and Thunderbolt operate?

Hello,
Is it possible the current Mac Mini 2.7 Ghz i7 with two full-resolution displays and Thunderbolt operate?
Thanxs for your answers.
Gerald

On Second thoughts...
I don't really know how well Logic Express 7 performs on the Mac Mini because I have not yet had the chance to experience the two together. Don't let that put you off the idea though! From my understanding of the system requirements printed on the Logic Express homepage, it states that a G4 or faster system is required, however Apple personally recommend a Dual G4 or G5 is recommended alongside a minimum of 512MB of Ram. This Does mean that Logic Express will run on the Mac Mini but you will most probably find it lags when moving samples in real time and rendering them onto your hard drive. If you really want to enjoy making "serious" music on the Mac then you really need to be looking at the iMac G5 or the iMac Core Duo (Intel) purely for your tempers sake. As for an Intel Mac Mini, there is no indication as to when we will be seeing one on the market and therefore you may find yourself on the fence between keeping your fixed budget and holding on a little or jumping in and getting on the right road to a digital musical life - mac style.
Maybe this will inspire your decision:
http://www.engadget.com/2005/02/08/how-to-turn-your-mac-mini-into-a-low-cost-rec ording-studio/
Hope this helps
-Pos

Wide Gamut Displays with OSX

I guess this is the most appropriate forum for this question.
There are now a lot of wide-gamut monitors out in the market. In non color-aware applications, the colors on these monitors look terribly over-saturated. In a color-aware application, like Photoshop or Firefox 3, things look fine.
OS X itself doesn't seem to be color-aware. Most noticeable are the Close / Minimize / Expand buttons in the corner, the red and green are awful. Even after calibrating, things still look bad.
Are there any plans to make OS X more color aware, so that when a wide gamut monitor is used, correct colors are displayed?

I guess I can only hope that they will address the issue with Snow Leopard. As far as 1920x1200 resolution, professional-quality, standard-gamut IPS monitors go the pickings are pretty **** slim. You can either get the Apple Cinema Display with its single input, or you can get the NEC 2490 with its high cost and internal hardware that adds input lag. All other options are wide-gamut.
I feel like crying I'm not a software dev but c'mon, the open source Firefox 3 has got it down just fine, how hard is it to add wide-gamut support to the otherwise excellent OS X?

Best way to set up two thunderbolt displays and thunderbolt ethernet on a Late 2013 MBP with only 2 thunderbolt ports?

I have a late 2013 MBP with only 2 thunderbolt ports. I want to set up two external displays (both have usb ports on the back but not thunderbolt so I can't daisy-chain) but one of my thunderbolt ports is being taken up by the ethernet adapter. Is it possible to convert one of my displays to plug into my open HDMI slot? Or is it better to use the two thunderbolt ports for the two displays and switch the ethernet to the slower usb adapter?

You can use a HDMI to DVI adapter if the display resolution is not greater than 1920 x 1200.
<http://startech.com/Cables/Audio-Video/HDMI/>
or you could use wireless for your network connection.
<http://www.apple.com/airport-express/>
If you use 5GHz, it should be nearly as fast as Ethernet.

Wide gamut monitors and prepping files for website

This question is for those who are colour management savvy and understand the issues with prepping sRGB profiled files for the web. I thought I was pretty good at this stuff, but found out I'm not as good as I thought....
Problem - prepping my images for my own website using a wide gamut monitor (NEC 2690 with SpectraView calibrating software).
Issue - when viewing said images after placing in website, on wide gamut monitor, reds are over saturated and colour not as it was in prepped file. My "other" monitor is a laptop screen (profiled, but still......). I do need to get an sRGB monitor (the NEC "regular" 24" or an Apple), but funds are tight right now.
I'm pretty sure all my workflow is good - profiled monitor (gamma 2.2), colour settings in Photoshop (I change over to n. American web/internet work space when prepping files for web), converting files to sRGB etc.
It's when I go to Save For Web.
I am embedding the ICC profile (for Safari and Firefox users), but when previewing the image in the browser (Safari) the image is as described above - over saturated in the reds etc. It looks the same after load onto my website and viewing in colour managed browser (Safari and Firefox).
Is this simply an issue of the wide gamut monitor "stretching" the available sRGB numbers to fit the (almost) aRGB space on the monitor?
Or is this something to do with the Monitor RGB (or is that the same thing......)????
Or am I missing something else???
any explanation of what is happening from a colour management point of view - and how best to deal with it - would be greatly appreciated. Also any books/articles/threads.
Thanks!
Oh yes, I'm using CS3.

I'm using the Spider Pro to calibrate my monitor and everything looks great in Photoshop, Illustrator and Firefox 3.5 with color management turned on. But the lack of color management in Fireworks is still a problem because I'm not seeing the colors the way they will look on most people's monitors. I can't design unless I can see what most people will be seeing.
Fireworks should be using that ICC profile that my calibrator generated but instead its sending the colors to the monitor raw. This is what's causing the over-saturation. This really is quite unacceptable.

Mini Display and Thunderbolt Question

So I have a Macbook Pro with mini display port and I bought a Thunderbolt enabled iMac. I thought because of the supposed "backwards compaitbilites" that everything would be fine to connect. I bought the Thunderbolt cable recommended by an Apple Authorized Reseller, only to find out that it cant connect the laptop to iMac for use as a bigger display. Further research confirmed that a thunderbolt device can go to mini display, but not the other way around.
So I am wondering, if I have a mini display to hdmi, can I buy a Thunderbolt to hdmi and use the hdmi to link to two since the signal will be converted for hdmi?
I really need this to work...

That will not work. Your iMac can only be used as an external display for another Mac through a Thunderbolt cable, not a Thunderbolt adapter.
Instead, the only way you have in order to use your iMac as an external display is ScreenRecycler > http://www.screenrecycler.com You just need that both computers are connected to the same network

HT3382 Mini Display and Thunderbolt compatibility

I have a Apple LED Cinema display that uses the Mini Display. I plan to get a new MacBook Air that has thunderbolt display connector. Will my old display work with my new MacBook Air?

Yes, Mini DisplayPort devices will also work with computer Thunderbolt ports.

W520 FHD LED TFT 95% Gamut Display and Color Sensor with Pantone Calibration - Review

Last week I have received my (first) new Lenovo W520 Thinkpad, which I decided to buy after lots of research on the internet. I am excited about its computing power and feature richness. Its biggest flaw though is the 1920x1080 LED TFT FHD display, which offers the worst color calibration I have seen in a high-end laptop in the last 10 years.
Its color rendering is highly disappointing as it shows unnatural, oversaturated colors that make the monitor useless for professional photo and video editing purposes. Primary tones glare neon-like in a highly disturbing manner. A red stop sign appears pink and flags in the google image search are displayed in a ridiculous way.
I have tried the following approaches to improve the color rendering.
The built-in color sensor in conjunction with the Pantone calibration software lead to the worst outcome. The white background of Windows Explorer becomes yellowish-greenish.
A better outcome canbe achieved using Windows 7 color management for display calibration, which doesn't avoid the neon colors, but at least white is rendered white.
Using the Nvidia graphic card tools and setting back gamma to 0.76 also helps to a very little degree.
Another solution is a free gamma correction tool called QuickMonitorProfile. This brings back the reds to normal tones with the side effect, that all mid-tones are rendered very pale.
I didn't have a possibility to try high-class external calibration hardware. For me the only solution remains to use a decent external monitor.
I have found the following interesting threads related to this topic:
http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/W-Series-ThinkPad-Laptops/How-do-I-lower-the-saturation-on-my-W520-the-r...
http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/W-Series-ThinkPad-Laptops/W510-W520-FHD-color-profile-supplied-by-Lenovo...
http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/W-Series-ThinkPad-Laptops/Very-happy-with-my-W520/m-p/508841#M18189
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Color sensor is bad joke, it's totally useless. Display gives better results without calibration than calibration with color sensor.
I tested calibration with best possible tools, using Eye One with i1Profiler and results are much better but still it's no way near acceptable for serious photography work. Delta variation is 15-20% (meaning colors are 15-20% off from the correct one, compared to Eizo Coloredge monitors where delta variation is around 2%).
Color sensor is just marketing gimmic for Lenovo. As I have stated on another post, Lenovo needs to get on grip on various BIG problems with their top of the Thinkpad laptops.

Correct export color space for wide gamut monitors.

Running a photography studio I have 4 typical scenarios of how clients or end users will see my photo work. I create and edit the photos using LR 3 on a HP 2475w (wide gamut) monitor. I'm aware that there are color shifts, but trying to figure out which export color space to use to be most consistent.
A) Wide Gamut monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
B) Wide Gamut monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
C) Standard monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
D) Standard monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
A) gives the best results and that's what I run myself. No matter the color space that I export (sRGB, aRGB, or my custom calibrated ICC) the images appear to be correct 100%
B) gives mixed results...the hosting site for my photos seems to oversaturate a bit when I view the photos in their preview size which is what my clients see, when I view the original photo in full resolution (this feature disabled for my clients to avoid them downloading full rez copies of images), then the images appears a bit dull (70%). When I try this same scenario using aRGB export, it looks better (90-95%). When I export it using my monitor profile then the photo is spot on 100% however my monitor profile shows the photo incorrectly when viewing it using the standard Windows Vista photo viewer, it appears lighter and less saturated which I guess I expect since it's not color managed.
C) On a standard monitor the photos all look the same regardless of color space export so long as I use a color managed browser such as Firefox.
D) This gives pretty much the same breakdown of results as scenario B above. At the moment, it appears that when I use my custom ICC profile which is the calibration of my monitor...I get the best web results.
However my custom ICC profile gives me the worst local results within my windows viewer and when my clients load the photos on their machines, no doubt they will look just as bad on theirs regardless of which monitor they use. So aRGB seems to be the best choice for output. Anyone else do this? It's significantly better when viewing in IE on both Wide Gamut and Standard LCD's when compared to sRGB.
I would guess that my typical client has a laptop with Windows and they will both view the photos locally and upload them on the web, so it needs to look as close to what it looks like when I'm processing it in LR and Photoshop as possible. I know that a lot of people ask questions about their photos being off because they don't understand that there's a shift between WG and non-WG monitors, but I get that there's a difference...question is which color space export has worked best for others.

I am saying that since images on the internet are with extremely few
exceptions targeted towards sRGB. It is extremely common for those images to
not contain ICC profiles even if they really are sRGB. If they do not
contain ICC profiles in the default mode in Firefox, Firefox (as well as
Safari btw, another color managed browser), will not convert to the monitor
profile but will send the image straight to the monitor. This means that on
a wide gamut display, the colors will look oversaturated. You've no doubt
seen this on your display, but perhaps you've gotten used to it. If you
enable the "1" color management mode, Firefox will translate every image to
the monitor profile. This will make the colors on your display more
realistic and more predictable (since your monitor's very specific
properties no longer interfere and the image's colors are displayed as they
really are) for many sites including many photographic ones. This is most
important on a wide gamut display and not that big of a deal on a standard
monitor, which usually is closer to sRGB.
It seems you are suggesting that for a wide-gamut display it is better to
try using your own monitor's calibration profile on everything out there,
assuming on images posted with a wider gamat it will get you more color
range while there would be nothing lost for images posted in sRGB.
Indeed. The point of color management is to make the specific
characteristics of your monitor not a factor anymore and to make sure that
you see the correct color as described in the working space (almost always
sRGB on the web). This only breaks down when the color to be displayed is
outside of the monitor's gamut. In that case the color will typically get
clipped to the monitor's gamut. The other way around, if your original is in
sRGB and your monitor is closer to adobeRGB, the file's color space is
limiting. For your monitor, you want to make the system (Firefox in this
case) assume that untagged files are in sRGB as that is what the entire
world works in and translate those to the monitor profile. When you
encounter adobeRGB or wider files (extremely rare but does happen), it will
do the right thing and translate from that color space to the monitor
profile.
Wide gamut displays are great but you have to know what you are doing. For
almost everybody, even photographers a standard gamut monitor is often a
better choice. One thing is that you should not use unmanaged browsers on
wide gamut displays as your colors will be completely out of whack even on
calibrated monitors. This limits you to Firefox and Safari. Firefox has the
secret option to enable color management for every image. Safari doesn't
have this. There is one remaining problem, which is flash content on
websites. Flash does not color manage by default and a lot of flash content
will look very garish on your wide gamut display. This includes a lot of
photographer's websites.

Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
Thanks for any help!
Michael

Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
PS RGB Workspace: ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient? Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values. If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour. With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase. Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

15" MBP and Wide Gamut monitor

Does anyone know if the late 2008 MBP 15" (with dual graphics cards) will support one of the newer wide gamut displays at 10 or 12 bits of color?
If not, is it a limitation of this particular hardware, or would any high-end Mac have the same problem.
Thanks
nwmtnguy

Mac users are running wide-gamut displays successfully but there are apparently some tricky issues.
BSteely wrote:
OS X does not yet appear to be savvy about anything above "Millions" of colors. I suspect some update will allow for "Billions" of colors, but that hasn't happened yet.
I don't think that advice really covers it. As I said, Mac users are using those displays already and have written about them. nwmtnguy, I think you would have much better luck with answers if you asked your question on a forum with high-end color Mac users. A couple of threads that Google found are:
http://www.colorforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=628
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38307

Wide Gamut Second Display?

Hi.
I am a graphic designer and I am currently working with a MacBook Pro 13 inch (mid 2010) with Mac OSX 10.8.3 and an external Dell U2412M display. I use mostly Adobe Photoshop CS6 and Adobe Illustrator CS6.
Since I would like to add another external display I have recently ordered the Matrox DualHead2Go DP Edition.
I am however, unsure of which 2nd external display is better for me: another Dell U2412M display (which is sRGB) or the Dell U2413 display which is a wide gamut display.
The main reason for my indecision is as follows: since the MacBook Pro doesn't allow for a graphics card exchange, the Matrox DualHead2Go is really the only feasible option to another external display. But this product has a caveat and that is that the operating system doesn't really "see" two independent displays. It "sees" a desktop space that occupies two displays but it thinks of it as a single big display. As such, I don't think I will, for example, be able to use 2 different display calibration profiles simultaneously.
Also, since my system isn't a true 10-bit system (the graphics card on the MacBook Pro is a Nvidia GeForce 320M) I wonder if I will see any difference in the total number of colours displayed by the wide gamut display or if I will still be seeing "only" 16 million colours but just a different 16 million than I see on the sRGB display.
Having a wide gamut display running alongside a normal gamut display seems to me like a good solution since I could just focus on the best display for color critical work and use the other one to preview things on a normal gamut display. But considering the calibration profile issue, would both displays render very different colours or would the difference be minimal if, for example, I set the wide gamut display to its sRGB emulation mode?
If I got a colorimeter to calibrate my display(s), would the Matrox DualHead2Go caveat still be there?
If anyone has tried a similar setup I would really appreciate your feedback since I am really lost on this issue, even after extensively researching it online.
Thank you.

Lucypug08 wrote:
So really, I don't even see how there could be a solution, other than getting a new monitor that isn't wide gamut. But I'm open for any advice. (by the way, if you dont' need to work on RAW files, and just go straight to jpeg, you're fine._ -Chance
Nope...sorry, you're all screwed up. First off, what display and how is it profiled? What OS? Since you have dual displays, are you absolutely sure your video card supports different profiles for multiple displays? On Mac, no problem, on Windows that depends on your vid card.
Camera Raw (and Photoshop) get's it's ability to accurately display you image directly from your display profile. If something is not showing up accurately in ACR or PS, then it's not the application's fault. ACR/Photoshop/Lightroom should all display your images accurately (and the same BTW). If it doesn't then it's something on your system that is breaking down...
BTW, you really don't seem to understand how ACR/PS and color management work. You need to do some reading on that. ACR takes the raw image, demosiaces the image and applies certain default correction. It then takes the image color (internally ProPhoto RGB with a linear gamma) and transforms the image data by way of your display profile for accurate display in the ACR preview. It's the display profile that needs to be accurate...ACR will only provide a preview based on the display profile and if that's hosed the preview is hosed.
I work with wide gamut displays (NEC) and I have zero problems dealing with color management. My images look accurate on the display and in print. So, if YOU can't get an accurate preview display on your monitors, you need to look inwards, not outwards.

Wide gamut options for iMac, what are they

We have a new iMac 22 inch model and when we try to calibrate it as a wide gamut monitor using Datacolor Spyder Studio we get the error that this is not a wide gamut monitor. *** I thought this was the ultimate in displays!
What do we have to do to get a wide gamut display? We really don't want to add a monitor

Color gamut is a bit worse on the new panel vs. the old one from what I can tell. Both are WLED backlit which limits the spectrum of colors they can accurately reproduce.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4340/27inch-apple-imac-review-2011/7
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50281286

Wide-gamut displays and Thunderbolt

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for