Re: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream?
Re: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream?
- Subject: Re: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream?
- From: edmund ronald <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:29:44 +0100
Ah, I see CD has got a well-calibrated sarcasm detector. My take here is
that QD tech seem to be arriving on the market with a bang; I'd be
optimistic, as these seem to be quantum techs, just knowing the primaries
may suffice to use a simple sensor to calibrate. The primaries are defined
by the physics in such a case, so it's more about knowing how the sensor
reacts to them.
Edmund
ᐧ
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Charles D Tobie <email@hidden> wrote:
> As usual, the degree of Edmund’s sarcasm is so great, that its difficult
> to determine what he is actually saying. My usual strategy is to ignore his
> posts entirely. However, having been foolish enough to post to this list
> once, I’ll make a single pass at replying…
>
> > On Mar 25, 2016, at 5:26 PM, edmund ronald <email@hidden>
> wrote:
> >
> > As usual I have to agree with David.
>
> Who knows? Like Doctor Who, you’re actual meaning is usually lost...
>
> > - No process ever improves; so Apple has passed o OLED and on quantum
> dot - they have their reasons, and that's it.
>
> Apple uses OLED in the Apple Watch. Apple passed on Quantum Dots for
> larger screens, due to ecological issues. I may disagree with various Apple
> strategies, but I feel that they are better endowed to determine what
> technologies are green, and what ones are not, than I am. So their avoiding
> Quantum Dots is not a good indicator.
>
> > -Uniformity clearly must be an issue with a screen that has no
> backlight. This also applies to OLED.
>
> Uniformity has proven to be the downfall of many great technologies. And
> its still important today. So, I add it to my list of unknowns, that I hope
> members of this list may have meaningful information on. Perhaps someone
> will actually use their fancy spectrophotometer to measure one of these
> screens at multiple locations, and post the results.
>
> > - Photographers need high resolution, especially on large screen like a
> 27". And see point 1 above, resolution improvements are slow and painful.
>
> Photographers desire pixel-level resolution, not just for tasks that
> require it, like sharpening, and dust busting, but for everything else, if
> possible. I would not waste deskspace on a display that did not have
> “retina” grade resolutions any longer, and I assume most other
> photographers feel similarly. My ancient 30” Cinema Display was 2,560 x
> 1,600, and seemed uselessly low-res for the last couple of years that I
> used it.
>
> > - How can one expect to disable a feature like Smart Contrast? Not
> feasible, things are always wired forever.
>
> Many auto-contrast functions in expensive TVs were hardwired in a way that
> made calibration impossible. So its an issue worth flagging.
>
> > - Last not least spectros are not appropriate for screen calibration,
> and much too expensive as we all know. Look at the $10K or so Minolta
> spectro-radiometers.
>
> There used to be this concept of display price to calibrator price ratio.
> With a display for two hundred and some odd dollars, that ratio is likely
> to be reversed. X-Rite has made moves to bring spectros back to a starting
> point over a thousand dollars. So its a legitimate question to ask whether
> the purchaser of this type of low cost display will use a calibrator at all.
> >
> > David is right: Until Philips or their IEMs bring out bespoke
> colorimeters with primaries wired in for the quantum transitions involved,
> this technology must be considered unusable, eeven at a pricepoint of $270
> list for 27".
>
> There are other options than a four or five digit priced spectro, and a
> “bespoke colorimeter”. For instance, the existing lines of general use
> colorimeters may provide library entries with corrections for Quantum Dot
> screens. Or built-in calibrators may serve the need; though those have not
> made it to this price range yet. With spectro-measured factory primaries,
> the remaining tasks are largely luminance related.
>
> So, I refine my list: It will be interesting to see what these displays
> offer for canned corrections (a display this wide-gamut must have a
> reasonable canned profile, or colors will be objectionable), it will be
> interesting to see what uses these displays are sufficient for (at this
> rez, photo and video really aren't on the list).
>
> C. David Tobie
> Senior Project Manager
> Workflow & Color
>
> Durst Phototechnik AG
> Julius-Durst-Strasse 4
> 39042 Brixen, Italy
> Telefon +39 04 72 81 01 11
> Telefax +39 04 72 81 01 32
> VAT Nr.: 00848170213
> www.durst-online.com <http://www.durst-online.com/>
> email@hidden <mailto:email@hidden>
> skype: CDTobie
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden