Re: NEC PA271Q "Native" chromaticities
Re: NEC PA271Q "Native" chromaticities
- Subject: Re: NEC PA271Q "Native" chromaticities
- From: Wire ~ via colorsync-users <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 14:48:09 -0800
Look up Adorama:
Sony BVM-E250A 25" Trimaster EL E-Series OLED Master Monitor, 1920x1080
Full HD Resolution
Our Price $23,400.00 You save: $2,600.00 (10%)
So, yea, Apple XDR seems like a bargain. Buy 4, plus stands.
Re chromaticity spec for monitors: Has there ever been a time when these
were spelled out? I've never noticed any claims by CIE numbers.
I can think of some reasons why:
1. Performance is implied by broad trends in panel and backlight
designs, where when you identify the light source, you define a gamut
category with a predictable extent
2. The light sources are understood as SPDs not CIE coordinates
3. The visual variations within specific panel categories are minimal so
there's no point in nit-picking (not a pun haha)
4. CIE specific capabilities are not a selling point because it's too
nerdy; general gamut categories are good enough
5. There's enough sample variation that it would lead to problems to
make specific claims
Etc...
The DisplayCal guys talk a lot about compatibility of lamp type with
colorimeters and how new displays require more advanced pucks, with the
tech undergoing a new era.
I appreciated the post about how videographers want to think about this in
terms of a specific video type and a display with modalities that cover
their use cases, and loading of the display with a personality using LUTS.
I see the history behind this approach, and note how movie and TV
industries have preferred to can this stuff in the gear, while the computer
guys want to make their OS regime the center of everything.
It begs us to reconsider the design and intentions of Adobe/Apple ICC
software-based approaches. I'm not saying anything is wrong, exactly, but
this stuff is way too complex. Motion pictures and computing certainly
different ways of approaching the matter.
One of my intellectual measures of design hazards refers to a historical
oddity called the "Microsoft software-based modem" in the 80s, where the
CPU was given a job to do that was soon relegated to dedicated outboard
controllers. See Wikipedia Softmodem.
Same with disk mass-storage cylinder-head-sector, and solid-state drive
Trim. Both of which expose storage-device complexity to the OS, under
questionable premises. The typical reason is ignorance of some design
constraint that you expect will undergo a lot of change so you put it
software. Or, back in the day, engineers looked for things for new powerful
general-purpose microprocessors to do to justify the expense. Intel and
Microsoft always were open about making the expensive general purpose CPU
seem more valuable. Yet if you study the design cuts and how they play out
over history, you see a hazard of getting the system OS involved in the
decision making at the specific level of detail because it hurts modularity
and performance in the long run. Device-specific details tend to start as
experiments in a general purpose system, then when they are understood,
they are redefined for sake of modularity and simplicity of use. The same
may be happening with color management. Analog TV is an interesting
historical trend because the original design used a common end-to-end
signaling system. Originally, broadcast TV had a direct timing link from
studio to user, where the devices were synchronous—i.e., in real time!
Imagine what a breakthrough videotape was that you could store and replay
timings. This design cut left with artifacts like Rec.709 gamma being
camera-referred and decades later all of Poynton's work to straighten out
thinking about what the concern of gamma really is about and where the
concern really belongs. The change had to come about because computers use
"isochronous" timing. Each one has its own reference and the protocols and
formats let autonomous regimes interact. This is the deep distinction
between analog and digi: the domain of the clock.
Digression aside, it's not obvious to me that ICC color as Adobe and Apple
developed it in the 80s and 90s will live on. My complaints about problems
with tonal rendering variations in modern MacOS built-ins, Adobe PS, and
web-browser, which telegraphed discontentment from DisplayCal developer
Florian Hoch about Apple's abdication of custom XYZLUT display profiles
that meet spec but make MacOS glitch out, come from an assumption that
Apple should do ICC color properly, after all they championed a lot of this
stuff. But maybe the tide is turning and the display is becoming such a
well-defined device as far as their system is concerned that they prefer to
hide the detail altogether. Maybe they no longer care about supporting this
because it's too expensive in mobile or something, so they just leave it
Adobe and a minority who care about these variables.
If you worry about how the system is closing down freedoms, well, the claim
this stuff was ever open in the first place is specious. Decades ago I
noticed that Windows startup "Welcomes" you to your own computer. What
would you think if someone welcomed you to your own house when you come
home? Ever carefully study an EULA before clicking through? Remember "Rip,
Mix and Burn"? Compare and contrast with iTunes Match.
The writing has been on the wall for a long time re Microsoft, Apple, and
their commitments to your future.
Back in the day there was this nerd named Richard Stallman who warned
everyone about this and put his money where his mouth is by developing a
little system called GNU. After decades of work this other guy named Linus
gets all the credit!
Please forgive my rambling. All this stuff ties together in my head. Maybe
it reads a little looney on this forum.
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:16 PM <email@hidden> wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Many people I talk to, who are NOT in our "business", are notoriously
> "outraged" by the idea of a monitor price anything higher than what the
> computer cost them. $200 to $400 are considered "very good" for most
> people,
> just look at what's on sale at Staples. Anything above that range is
> considered preposterous. But I agree $25,000 for a 32" SONY BVM studio
> display ain't cheap (keep buying those lottery tickets...). I remember when
> I purchased my NEC 19u CRT monitors, many years ago, was it ever expensive!
> And paying several thousands of the first Eizo CG21 was beyond "ludicrous",
> for me. Dell, BenQ, ASUS, HP and the likes are considered relatively
> inexpensive but I can see they long entered the high-end market with HP
> being one of the first with its DreamColor (that I can remember). I don't
> think I'd be ready to give BenQ $1500 for a monitor, even with the hood...
> Again, after combing some of these monitors's User Guides, not a sliver of
> stated chromaticities anywhere? Seems everyone is satisfied with using a
> relative metric such as "X % of AdobeRGB" or some other "meaningful" gamut.
> Even PCWorld or DPreview type of articles, completely silent. Why not, at
> least, take advantage of the article to "educate" potential buyers about
> what makes a monitor gamut? I suspect the guys (or girls) who write these
> articles don't have a clue themselves...
>
> Question: doesn't SONY offers smaller (cheaper) BVM monitors? I seem to
> remember they did, maybe in a previous generation... And to what extent
> wouldn't a "good" high-end monitor like a NEC or an Eizo not be comparable?
> Side by side? I confess I never seen a SONY BVM "in person" (I don't go to
> video shows), but I would tend to think it is "overpriced", I mean,
> compared
> to a well-calibrated, well-characterized display? On the other hand, it is
> true that professional studios who are wall-to-wall Avid users, for
> example, like a local station I know, can't claim even the most basic color
> management -- such an archaic system (?), if you want my opinion, no ICC
> profiling of any kind, anywhere to be seen! --, creating the necessity for
> monitors that are Rec709 or some other standard "out-of-the-box".
>
> / Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: colorsync-users
> <colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden> On Behalf Of
> Wire ~ via colorsync-users
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 1:23 PM
> To: email@hidden
> Subject: Re: NEC PA271Q "Native" chromaticities
>
> A 32in Sony BVM studio display at $25,000 street is my idea of not cheap.
> So I'm being flippant.
>
> What I mean by "commodities" is a product widely available and suitable to
> a
> consumer's preferences are taste, rather than a product that satisfies a
> specific industrial process which cost must be tolerated by that process.
> Vague, I admit...
> _______________________________________________
> 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