In a message dated 2/16/07 5:05 PM, Roger Breton wrote:
> Ideally, displays should be made with a specific application in
> mind. So that little if any calibration would be required on the part of the
> user. But is that realistic, Tom : doesn't seem to me that this is how the
> bulk of monitors are manufactured. My point is, yes, less calibration imay
> be better in terms of preserving the integrity of a display but, in
> practice, I don't see what the alternatives are? IMO, some amount of
> twisting must be performed, in order to obtain the desired color appearances
> from these "general-purposes" monitors. Or have I got this wrong?
I'm neither a hardware-manufacturing expert nor a color scientist, but it
would seem to me that if we started seeing more displays on the market that
use 10- or 12-bit internal LUTs, or higher, and/or CPU graphic cards that
have a significantly higher bit depth than the currently very inadequate,
yet still prevalent 8 bits, then we may not have to worry as much about the
adverse effects of "pushing too hard" during the calibration process.
I keep wondering what is taking so long for that simple advancement towards
high-bit displays to take hold, given that both processing power and
affordability seem to be within reach already, even for the mass market. One
shouldn't be forced to spend thousands of dollars for displays of that kind.
I would like to hope that after all, with the advent of units like the
Samsung SyncMaster XL20, perhaps we are on the verge on a shift in just that
direction.
Marco Ugolini
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
