• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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: Ben Goren <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:47:07 -0700

On Mar 28, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Wayne Bretl <email@hidden> wrote:

> The display is one side of it. A perfect system for the individual requires a camera with that individual's matching functions also.

...and cameras are quite significantly different from humans, such that no camera I'm aware of is even close to any human. If you want to do that sort of thing at the input end, you've got to go the multi-spectral route such as what Dr. Berns and his gang at RIT do.

You don't necessarily need especially exotic equipment. A standard RGB camera plus a couple carefully-selected Kodak / Wratten color filters can give you "good enough" spectral resolution. And you can use more and more filters to narrow down the spectral resolution to whatever your need is. There're academic papers freely downloadable from the RIT Web site for those interested in the details...but, in practice, it's of little interest to anybody outside of the curatorial or forensic fields.

But all this misses another, more fundamental problem. So you've got something perfectly suited to your own visual system. What good is that going to be for anybody else? Somebody else is going to see differences you'll ignore, and ignore differences you might obsess over.

That's a big part of the advantage in the standard observers. They're guaranteed perfect for nobody, but they're also pretty much equally "close enough" for everybody, too.

...and, again. Graphic arts isn't a precision science. Yes, 1 DE _can_ be distinguished in certain circumstances, but the error from paper that doesn't lie quite flat is typically a lot more than 1 DE. Almost no real-world environments are actually that sensitive.

If your total system has a low-single-digit average DE error, if there aren't any double-digit DE errors in areas people care about, if everything is consistent edge-to-edge...there're plenty advantages to tight controls in color management past that (better shadow / highlight detail, for example), but not in areas that are going to be seen in terms of fidelity of color reproduction.

Cheers,

b&
 _______________________________________________
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


  • Follow-Ups:
    • RE: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream?
      • From: Wayne Bretl <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream? (From: edmund ronald <email@hidden>)
 >RE: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream? (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>)
 >RE: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream? (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>)
 >RE: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream? (From: Wayne Bretl <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: RE: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream?
  • Next by Date: RE: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream?
  • Previous by thread: RE: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream?
  • Next by thread: RE: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread