I mean that in Adobe RBB mode, it's not unreasonable to predict that Dell hits 2 delta-E conformance across the population. IOW, yes consistency across the face of one panel, and conformance of the population to the standard color space.
Here's a screen capture showing the difference between the Dell UP2516 and AdobeRGB: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkD78CVR1NBqkoskUPmmGmwKuk7b4Q?e=ldqlgr It's not bad at all. I don't know if it amounts to 2 DeltaE? But it's possible. Does DispCal (Argyll) have any tools to test this hypothesis? We are indeed living in a "golden age" of technology. / Roger
Forgive me, I was referring to Dell's claims for consistency of this model. A delta-E being a CIE unit of color difference based on a statistical notion of a discernable color diff. Color guys talk about like audio and RF guys talk about dB, and video guys talk about IRE This model targets content pros. It's about the "P" in UP2516D. So my measurements as revealed by DCal made profile is that the Adobe RGB mode hits Dell's target. And Dell supplies a certificate report for each unit showing it meets their claims. This includes panel uniformity as well as color response. You guys here rightly asked—in other so many words—Yeah, but does it actually do it?! In context of NEC pro gear that has a rep for getting this stuff right. And at this price point, the query is wise if maybe not fair. I'm skeptical too... So living on edge of BS as I do I throwing out there a synopsis that based on what I'm seeing Dell's claim is legit. And I'm hoping for a contrary persoective 'cause it seems too good to be true ;) Re 1 billion colors: HDMI and DP (I thinj) support 10 bit color data path from graphics to device. 3 x 2^10 is a billion. Not sure what content can use this? On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 11:35 Roger Breton via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
I mean that in Adobe RBB mode, it's not unreasonable to predict that Dell hits 2 delta-E conformance across the population. IOW, yes consistency across the face of one panel, and conformance of the population to the standard color space.
Here's a screen capture showing the difference between the Dell UP2516 and AdobeRGB:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkD78CVR1NBqkoskUPmmGmwKuk7b4Q?e=ldqlgr
It's not bad at all. I don't know if it amounts to 2 DeltaE? But it's possible. Does DispCal (Argyll) have any tools to test this hypothesis?
We are indeed living in a "golden age" of technology.
/ Roger
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/wire%40lexiphanicism...
This email sent to wire@lexiphanicism.com
1 billion possible numbers (Device Values) sure; easy to do via encoding numbers. 1 billion possible colors? No. We can't even see 16.7 million colors, another common range of possible device values based on encoding numbers. But the marketing people writing for display companies (and scanners and cameras) apparently believe that people believe more color (numbers) is more colors and that's "better". Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/>
On Jan 4, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
Re 1 billion colors: HDMI and DP (I thinj) support 10 bit color data path from graphics to device. 3 x 2^10 is a billion. Not sure what content can use this?
Well we can see 16.7 million or even 1 billion colors but we just can't differentiate them. 8-) DAVID SCHARF PHOTOGRAPHY David http://www.electronmicro.com On 1/4/20 2:25 PM, Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users wrote:
1 billion possible numbers (Device Values) sure; easy to do via encoding numbers. 1 billion possible colors? No. _*We can't even see 16.7 million colors,*_ another common range of possible device values based on encoding numbers.
But the marketing people writing for display companies (and scanners and cameras) apparently believe that people believe more color (numbers) is more colors and that's "better".
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/>
On Jan 4, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
Re 1 billion colors: HDMI and DP (I thinj) support 10 bit color data path from graphics to device. 3 x 2^10 is a billion. Not sure what content can use this?
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/david%40scharfphoto....
This email sent to david@scharfphoto.com
I don't totally agree. Again, we can produce billions of numbers. Some are not colors. Some differing numbers are the same colors: R0/G255/B0 in ProPhoto RGB isn't a color. We can't see it. If you can't see it, it's not a color. It's a set of numbers. In sRGB, 1/255/240 and 2/255/240 are different triplets of numbers. They ARE the same color as the dE between the two device values is 0.01: http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersNotColors.jpg <http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersNotColors.jpg> 16-bit color, the math allows us to define billion’s of color values, but that doesn’t change the fact we still can’t see 16.7 million colors in the 24 bit encoding of these pixels. As such, it’s best to talk about encoding having a potential to define millions or billions of numbers, device values, that could be associated to a color value thus color, if we could see them. But if we can’t differentiae them visibly, it is silly to suggest they are indeed colors. Don’t confuse a color number, a device value, for a color, a color you can see! Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/>
On Jan 4, 2020, at 11:06 PM, David Scharf <electronman@roadrunner.com> wrote:
Well we can see 16.7 million or even 1 billion colors but we just can't differentiate them. 8-) David http://www.electronmicro.com <http://www.electronmicro.com/>
16-bit color, the math allows us to define billion’s of color values, but that doesn’t change the fact we still can’t see 16.7 million colors in the 24 bit encoding of these pixels. As such, it’s best to talk about encoding having a potential to define millions or billions of numbers, device values, that could be associated to a color value thus color, if we could see them. But if we can’t differentiae them visibly, it is silly to suggest they are indeed colors. Don’t confuse a color number, a device value, for a color, a color you can
see!
When the display vendor advertises 1 billion colors, a knowledgeable reader takes that as "supports 10-bit per channel data" and connects this to the value of the 2 extra bits for emerging performance standards and evolving formats. But sure, my fav example is Photoshop Lab has like poor coding efficiency, so 1/3 of the values available correspond to no idea of color whatsoever! Compared to sRGB or CMYK it has like 30% efficiency and designers used to dump their data into Lab to perform a quick chop not realizing they'd put their image through a colander. But as you rightly note, you can get away with very few bits if they're properly perceptual distributed. Isn't this the beautiful thing about all compression modes? If you understand the model and the coding, you don't fret about it, unless you see it being misused, you just understand the limits of the tool. So I am not hung up about the word color in context. I do share your sense that marketing could do a better job of helping built understanding. But for a full generation, marketing was as much about bullshitting that a competitors claims don't matter as it was about communication. The distinction between teaching and persuading. Why does marketing it have to be so obtuse? I've tried writing ad copy and it's hard. I began to see that almost all simple speech is lying because it's so context dependent. And who are "you" to decide the conventions of thought? IOW, act freely but do so at your own peril :) There was this little company called Apple Computers back in the day, they they invented something cool and for Ridley Scott to design a compelling ad about how their main competitor was like a "big brother" telling all the thralls what to do. Later after a lot of success, they invoked Einstein and Picaso as their mascots. Think Different they said. Now they are like the Borg andtheir leaders moved to a big donut shaped spaceship and seem not to care about anything but themselves. C'est la v... Something. I do share your sense of the danger of a culture that traffics deeply in BS, And I worry more about since the internet let me meet "fan culture," and now I am stunned into amazement at how baby Yoda is as significant a popular concern. But the term "color" in "1 billion colors" context seems pretty innocent. Salut
On Jan 5, 2020, at 11:48 AM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
16-bit color, the math allows us to define billion’s of color values, but that doesn’t change the fact we still can’t see 16.7 million colors in the 24 bit encoding of these pixels. As such, it’s best to talk about encoding having a potential to define millions or billions of numbers, device values, that could be associated to a color value thus color, if we could see them. But if we can’t differentiae them visibly, it is silly to suggest they are indeed colors. Don’t confuse a color number, a device value, for a color, a color you can
see!
When the display vendor advertises 1 billion colors, a knowledgeable reader takes that as "supports 10-bit per channel data" and connects this to the value of the 2 extra bits for emerging performance standards and evolving formats.
I worry about all the non knowledgeable readers. Those that see spec's for a 10-bit display vs. a 12 bit one and assume by that spec alone, the 12-bit unit is superior. More is better right? But then that's why marketing exists, for the slew of mostly non knowledgeable readers. I also somewhat worry about those that believe R0/G255/B0 in ProPhoto RGB is a color. It's a color number, that's for sure. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/>
Hi Andrew, I think your talkin color science and engineering and I'm talkin biology. Inability to differentiate close colors does not mean their non-existence or imperceptibility. That's not silly, its actual! DAVID SCHARF PHOTOGRAPHY *DAVID SCHARF* http://www.electronmicro.com On 1/5/20 8:33 AM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
I don't totally agree. Again, we can produce billions of numbers. Some are not colors. Some differing numbers are the same colors: R0/G255/B0 in ProPhoto RGB isn't a color. We can't see it. If you can't see it, it's not a color. It's a set of numbers. In sRGB, 1/255/240 and 2/255/240 are different triplets of numbers. They ARE the same color as the dE between the two device values is 0.01: http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersNotColors.jpg
16-bit color, the math allows us to define billion’s of color values, but that doesn’t change the fact we still can’t see 16.7 million colors in the 24 bit encoding of these pixels. As such, it’s best to talk about encoding having a potential to define millions or billions of numbers, device values, that could be associated to a color value thus color, if we could see them. But if we can’t differentiae them visibly, it is silly to suggest they are indeed colors. Don’t confuse a color number, a device value, for a color, a color you can see!
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jan 4, 2020, at 11:06 PM, David Scharf <electronman@roadrunner.com <mailto:electronman@roadrunner.com>> wrote:
Well we can see 16.7 million or even 1 billion colors but we just can't differentiate them.8-) David http://www.electronmicro.com
I'm talking both. Color, is a perceptual property. So if you can't see it it's not a color. Color is not a particular wavelength of light. It is a cognitive perception, the excitation of photoreceptors followed by retinal processing and ending in the our visual cortex, within our brains. Sounds like biology to me.... As such, colors are defined based on perceptual experiments. Fairchild's "Color Appearance Models". Page 1! "Like beauty, color is in the eye of the beholder. For as long as human scientific inquiry has been recorded, the nature of color perception has been a topic of great interest. Despite tremendous evolution of technology,fundamental issues of color perception remain unanswered. Many scientific attempts to explain color rely purely on the physical nature of light and objects. However, without the human observer, there is no color". Further on the same page: "It is common to say that certain wavelengths of light, or certain objects are a give color. This is an attempt to relegate color to the purely physical domain. It is more correct to state those stimuli are perceived to be a certain color when viewed under specific conditions". Page 1 paragraph 2 of Digital Color Management by Giorgianni and Madden: "But color itself is a perception and perceptions only exist in the mind". Page 11 of The GATF Practical guide to Color Management: "Although extensive research has been conducted, we still not completely understand what happens in the brain when we "see" color. The visual sensation known as color occurs when light excites photoreceptors in the eye called cone cells". Page 75 of Understanding Color Management by Sharma: "Color is an impression that we form in our brains".
On Jan 5, 2020, at 5:57 PM, David Scharf <electronman@roadrunner.com> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I think your talkin color science and engineering and I'm talkin biology. Inability to differentiate close colors does not mean their non-existence or imperceptibility. That's not silly, its actual!
DAVID SCHARF http://www.electronmicro.com <http://www.electronmicro.com/>
So you're saying that when these "color" numbers come up that we will see only gray? Nah, I don't think so. I think that most of us understand the Physics and and perceptive aspects of color. Perhaps you mean that these "invisible" colors do not exist as perceptually different from other colors close by in number? DAVID SCHARF PHOTOGRAPHY *DAVID SCHARF* On 1/5/20 5:26 PM, Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users wrote:
I'm talking both.
Color, is a perceptual property. So if you can't see it it's not a color. Color is not a particular wavelength of light. It is a cognitive perception, the excitation of photoreceptors followed by retinal processing and ending in the our visual cortex, within our brains. Sounds like biology to me.... As such, colors are defined based on perceptual experiments.
Fairchild's "Color Appearance Models". Page 1! "Like beauty, color is in the eye of the beholder. For as long as human scientific inquiry has been recorded, the nature of color perception has been a topic of great interest. Despite tremendous evolution of technology,fundamental issues of color perception remain unanswered. Many scientific attempts to explain color rely purely on the physical nature of light and objects. However, without the human observer, there is no color". Further on the same page: "It is common to say that certain wavelengths of light, or certain objects are a give color. This is an attempt to relegate color to the purely physical domain. It is more correct to state those stimuli are perceived to be a certain color when viewed under specific conditions".
Page 1 paragraph 2 of Digital Color Management by Giorgianni and Madden: "But color itself is a perception and perceptions only exist in the mind".
Page 11 of The GATF Practical guide to Color Management: "Although extensive research has been conducted, we still not completely understand what happens in the brain when we "see" color. The visual sensation known as color occurs when light excites photoreceptors in the eye called cone cells".
Page 75 of Understanding Color Management by Sharma: "Color is an impression that we form in our brains".
On Jan 5, 2020, at 5:57 PM, David Scharf <electronman@roadrunner.com> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I think your talkin color science and engineering and I'm talkin biology. Inability to differentiate close colors does not mean their non-existence or imperceptibility. That's not silly, its actual!
DAVID SCHARF http://www.electronmicro.com <http://www.electronmicro.com/>
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/david%40scharfphoto....
This email sent to david@scharfphoto.com
David, R0/G255/B0 in ProPhoto RGB isn't a color! And there are many, many other triplets of such numbers in that working space that are equally invisible. You can't see it period. It is not gray, it's invisible, it isn't a color. Do try plotting it's gamut against the spectrum locus. Please don't confuse a device value, a triplet of numbers as visible colors as there are such sets of numbers that are not visible. Want to use the (ugh) term, "Illegal colors" OK, but that doesn't change the fact that again, R0/G255/B0 in ProPhoto RGB isn't a color. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/>
On Jan 5, 2020, at 10:12 PM, David Scharf <electronman@roadrunner.com> wrote:
So you're saying that when these "color" numbers come up that we will see only gray? Nah, I don't think so. I think that most of us understand the Physics and and perceptive aspects of color. Perhaps you mean that these "invisible" colors do not exist as perceptually different from other colors close by in number?
DAVID SCHARF
On 1/5/20 5:26 PM, Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users wrote:
I'm talking both.
Color, is a perceptual property. So if you can't see it it's not a color. Color is not a particular wavelength of light. It is a cognitive perception, the excitation of photoreceptors followed by retinal processing and ending in the our visual cortex, within our brains. Sounds like biology to me.... As such, colors are defined based on perceptual experiments.
Fairchild's "Color Appearance Models". Page 1! "Like beauty, color is in the eye of the beholder. For as long as human scientific inquiry has been recorded, the nature of color perception has been a topic of great interest. Despite tremendous evolution of technology,fundamental issues of color perception remain unanswered. Many scientific attempts to explain color rely purely on the physical nature of light and objects. However, without the human observer, there is no color". Further on the same page: "It is common to say that certain wavelengths of light, or certain objects are a give color. This is an attempt to relegate color to the purely physical domain. It is more correct to state those stimuli are perceived to be a certain color when viewed under specific conditions".
Page 1 paragraph 2 of Digital Color Management by Giorgianni and Madden: "But color itself is a perception and perceptions only exist in the mind".
Page 11 of The GATF Practical guide to Color Management: "Although extensive research has been conducted, we still not completely understand what happens in the brain when we "see" color. The visual sensation known as color occurs when light excites photoreceptors in the eye called cone cells".
Page 75 of Understanding Color Management by Sharma: "Color is an impression that we form in our brains".
On Jan 5, 2020, at 5:57 PM, David Scharf <electronman@roadrunner.com> <mailto:electronman@roadrunner.com> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I think your talkin color science and engineering and I'm talkin biology. Inability to differentiate close colors does not mean their non-existence or imperceptibility. That's not silly, its actual!
DAVID SCHARF http://www.electronmicro.com <http://www.electronmicro.com/> <http://www.electronmicro.com/> <http://www.electronmicro.com/>
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com>) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/david%40scharfphoto.... <https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/david%40scharfphoto.com>
This email sent to david@scharfphoto.com <mailto:david@scharfphoto.com>
Hi Andrew, My point was that when there are colors separated by an extremely small increment, they may be indistinguishable from each other and we may may perceive them to be the same color--so not invisible but visible--just not perceptually different. Seems like we are making two different valid arguments. DAVID SCHARF PHOTOGRAPHY *DAVID SCHARF PHOTOGRAPHY* Scanning Electron Microscopy http://www.electronmicro.com On 1/6/20 6:49 AM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
David, R0/G255/B0 in ProPhoto RGB isn't a color! And there are many, many other triplets of such numbers in that working space that are equally invisible. You can't see it period. It is not gray, it's invisible, it isn't a color. Do try plotting it's gamut against the spectrum locus. Please don't confuse a device value, a triplet of numbers as visible colors as there are such sets of numbers that are not visible. Want to use the (ugh) term, "Illegal colors" OK, but that doesn't change the fact that again, R0/G255/B0 in ProPhoto RGB isn't a color.
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jan 5, 2020, at 10:12 PM, David Scharf <electronman@roadrunner.com <mailto:electronman@roadrunner.com>> wrote:
So you're saying that when these "color" numbers come up that we will see only gray? Nah, I don't think so. I think that most of us understand the Physics and and perceptive aspects of color. Perhaps you mean that these "invisible" colors do not exist as perceptually different from other colors close by in number?
DAVID SCHARF PHOTOGRAPHY
*DAVID SCHARF*
On 1/5/20 5:26 PM, Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users wrote:
I'm talking both.
Color, is a perceptual property. So if you can't see it it's not a color. Color is not a particular wavelength of light. It is a cognitive perception, the excitation of photoreceptors followed by retinal processing and ending in the our visual cortex, within our brains. Sounds like biology to me.... As such, colors are defined based on perceptual experiments.
Fairchild's "Color Appearance Models". Page 1! "Like beauty, color is in the eye of the beholder. For as long as human scientific inquiry has been recorded, the nature of color perception has been a topic of great interest. Despite tremendous evolution of technology,fundamental issues of color perception remain unanswered. Many scientific attempts to explain color rely purely on the physical nature of light and objects. However, without the human observer, there is no color". Further on the same page: "It is common to say that certain wavelengths of light, or certain objects are a give color. This is an attempt to relegate color to the purely physical domain. It is more correct to state those stimuli are perceived to be a certain color when viewed under specific conditions".
Page 1 paragraph 2 of Digital Color Management by Giorgianni and Madden: "But color itself is a perception and perceptions only exist in the mind".
Page 11 of The GATF Practical guide to Color Management: "Although extensive research has been conducted, we still not completely understand what happens in the brain when we "see" color. The visual sensation known as color occurs when light excites photoreceptors in the eye called cone cells".
Page 75 of Understanding Color Management by Sharma: "Color is an impression that we form in our brains".
On Jan 5, 2020, at 5:57 PM, David Scharf<electronman@roadrunner.com> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I think your talkin color science and engineering and I'm talkin biology. Inability to differentiate close colors does not mean their non-existence or imperceptibility. That's not silly, its actual!
DAVID SCHARF http://www.electronmicro.com <http://www.electronmicro.com/>
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/david%40scharfphoto....
This email sent todavid@scharfphoto.com
On Jan 6, 2020, at 5:32 PM, David Scharf <electronman@roadrunner.com> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
My point was that when there are colors separated by an extremely small increment, they may be indistinguishable from each other and we may may perceive them to be the same color--so not invisible but visible--just not perceptually different. Seems like we are making two different valid arguments.
Yes, there are two 'issues' here. One as you point out are two sets of color numbers that are the same color (my sRGB example). So two color numbers that are separated by extremely small increments that are indistinguishable from each other, in my example, by a mere deltaE of 0.01 are indeed ONE color. And no, they are not invisible, if they were, they couldn't be called colors. The other 'issue' are numbers that are not at all colors as they cannot be seen (my ProPhoto RGB example). Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/>
Am 05.01.20 um 17:33 schrieb Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users:
In sRGB, 1/255/240 and 2/255/240 are different triplets of numbers. They ARE the same color as the dE between the two device values is 0.01:
Hmm, I'm not comfortable with this definition of "same color", since it does not fit with the rule that A=B and B=C implies A=C. Note, if 0 were the same as 0.1, and 0.1 were the same as 0.2, and 0.2 were the same as 0.3, ... and 9.9 were the same as 10, this would imply that 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, ... 9.9, 10 are _all_ the same, i.e. it would also imply that 0 is the same as 10. But I think you would no longer consider L* = 0 the same lightness as L* = 10. [ Color (expressed in CIE units like XYZ) is IMO per se a continuous quantity (with infinite precision), like length, weight, temperature, voltage, power, etc. The limited precision of a color measurement device (like our eye) is a different issue. And precision loss due to quantization caused by a particular encoding is yet a different issue, too. ]
On Jan 6, 2020, at 4:26 PM, Gerhard Fuernkranz via colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
Am 05.01.20 um 17:33 schrieb Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users:
In sRGB, 1/255/240 and 2/255/240 are different triplets of numbers. They ARE the same color as the dE between the two device values is 0.01:
Hmm, I'm not comfortable with this definition of "same color", since it does not fit with the rule that A=B and B=C implies A=C.
They are perceptually identical; they appear as the same color and thus they are. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/>
I think the Babelcolor author has a tool to measure uniformity and possibly other display properties. I don’t see any reason to doubt a certificate, there are Photo Research radiometers that can map a whole display in one pass, and the fact that there is a certificate would indicate a measurement is part of the production process. Edmund On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 9:13 PM Wire ~ via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
Forgive me, I was referring to Dell's claims for consistency of this model.
A delta-E being a CIE unit of color difference based on a statistical notion of a discernable color diff. Color guys talk about like audio and RF guys talk about dB, and video guys talk about IRE
This model targets content pros. It's about the "P" in UP2516D.
So my measurements as revealed by DCal made profile is that the Adobe RGB mode hits Dell's target.
And Dell supplies a certificate report for each unit showing it meets their claims. This includes panel uniformity as well as color response.
You guys here rightly asked—in other so many words—Yeah, but does it actually do it?! In context of NEC pro gear that has a rep for getting this stuff right. And at this price point, the query is wise if maybe not fair.
I'm skeptical too...
So living on edge of BS as I do I throwing out there a synopsis that based on what I'm seeing Dell's claim is legit. And I'm hoping for a contrary persoective 'cause it seems too good to be true ;)
Re 1 billion colors: HDMI and DP (I thinj) support 10 bit color data path from graphics to device. 3 x 2^10 is a billion. Not sure what content can use this?
On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 11:35 Roger Breton via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
I mean that in Adobe RBB mode, it's not unreasonable to predict that Dell hits 2 delta-E conformance across the population. IOW, yes consistency across the face of one panel, and conformance of the population to the standard color space.
Here's a screen capture showing the difference between the Dell UP2516 and AdobeRGB:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkD78CVR1NBqkoskUPmmGmwKuk7b4Q?e=ldqlgr
It's not bad at all. I don't know if it amounts to 2 DeltaE? But it's possible. Does DispCal (Argyll) have any tools to test this hypothesis?
We are indeed living in a "golden age" of technology.
/ Roger
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/wire%40lexiphanicism...
This email sent to wire@lexiphanicism.com
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail...
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
10-bits is about UHD HDR I believe. In other words, it's about how changes in video have caught up and exceeded photography and print. And rather than not being able to see 1 billion colors being a downside, this is in fact it's desirable claim: it's got lower quantization noise so you don't get banding the new gen of super bright HDR capable imaging. Take a look at all the talk about Apple's new Pro XDR Display to see where this all is going. When you do, you'll see the effect UHD TV standards are having. Roger mentioned BT2020 gamut a while ago. It's in the context of that aspiration in which Display P3 can be seen as significant, because the jump to BT2020 is too far. Even if displays that can do it become readily available, the legacy of sRGB is gonna intrude. Over at DCal forums Display P3 is known as sRGB-2020. I see it basically getting a reasonable step up in gamut while not blowing the legacy out of the water, thanks to a better balanced expansion of the primaries than Adobe RGB, and a backwards looking sRGB TRC. But video is the future and it's changing fast the way DTP stuff was changing 20 years ago!
participants (6)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
David Scharf
-
edmund ronald
-
Gerhard Fuernkranz
-
graxx＠videotron.ca
-
Wire ~