On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:59 PM <graxx@videotron.ca> wrote:
I wish to better understand the issue that Florian spoke to Apple about, "... custom XYZLUT display profiles that meet spec but make MacOS glitch out". I'll have to research this on DisplayCAL, perhaps it is documented? Could this every be fixed?
I'm not advocating for either Microsoft or Apple or Argyll or DisplayCAL, I'm not surprised Apple may have changed things to make their lives simpler, or honestly screwed things up badly for developers.
Which side are you on, anyway?
/ Roger
I'm not on any side. I'm fascinated by the subject. I don't work for anyone pertaining to this subject. It's important to me as an amateur. In a nutshell, you can create XYZLUT profiles using DisplayCal on MacOS and the OS will let you select them in the Displays > Color panel without complaint then various Apple-supplied programs will just render your graphics completely wrong. Adobe works. Complaining to Apple is unproductive, and Florian had to put a caveat into the DisplayCal UI to tell users to avoid that style of profile on Mac. I suggested he take it up over here at the "Apple Colorsync Mailing List" though he was doubtful, noting that this list is mostly talk about prepress. As I was looking more into the matter, my experience is that depending on the profile I use on my up-to-date Mac, I get subtly different renderings depending on which software I use to work with graphics, even when all are supposed to be color-managed! I wrote these concerns up (not very well) and submitted them on this forum a few months ago, but no one here cares about Colorsync anymore. You guys all use Windows, OMG. Who knows why Apple even keeps this list around any more> Maybe because this place used to be a hotbed of well-informed and adventurous discussion, back when good 'ol Bruce Fraser was writing clear tracts about how to make color management work in the "real world". (The Epson Inkjet list was also a great forum, back in the day), So, having watched this stuff evolve for decades, I'm dumbfounded that for most users, color-management still is a complete mystery of behaviors, and more complex than ever. Kind of like the American commonwealth. I've no axe to grind re platforms. I work with Mac, Windows and Linux (I lived through the Unix Wars and done systems programming for novel super-computer architectures on Unix. And I've done tons of IT for these platforms. My personal systems are Apple (and VMs for the others), because I found Mac most elegant around time of Centris 650 when I bought my first home system, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. And the desktop publishing revolution belonged to Mac. I hate Microsoft as a general rule. Now everyone hates Apple. I see history sort of repeating i(it never really does) with iOS and Android. It pleases me that Microsoft (Balmer) thought phones were stupid in 2007 and a market not worth pursuing, and when they discovered how wrong Balmer was tried to re-invent Windows the mobile wworld just rejected them. Meanwhile Mac had gone Darwin. Saying yes to Android is saying please hijack my mobile and dox me for ransom, unless it's Android straight from Google. But I'm not invested in seeing any platform succeed or fail. My heart really lives with Richard Stallman's philosophy and work. Industry always thought he was a villain because he advocated that ordinary people should take interest in and ownership of tech that's crucial to their futures. So I returned to this list because I found DisplayCal, thought it's completely awesome, find the people working on it a super intelligent and well-informed, and when they said they ran into a problem that affects my platform of choice, I figured I should at least come over here and make a stab at seeing whether there's any traction with Apple to get it fixed. Along way, over at DisplayCal forums, I'm socratically learning about new trends in color and trying to connect these to old interests. Two of my favorite topics are Charles Poyton's wonderful expositions on the importance of understanding gamma—I can remember a guy named Timo who called out problems with non-unity gamma-encoded working spaces and RGB blending in Photoshop and how everyone thought he was a crank because he advocated high-bit linear light editing. A long time later, Adobe added a "Blending Mode Gamma" option to Photoshop. Good work Timo! There was a guy named Dan M. who taught photoshop CMYK by the numbers and he went through a phase where he taught all these prepress guys to "Move to Lab" in Photoshop under an 8-bit regime. Completely unaware that Lab coding efficiency is about %35 percent. Dan was a stickler for quality, but he had no problem that a single editing move could throw have of the information away. And there was endless struggling with platform-dependent color-rendering differences, especially re Epson. Andrew Rodney will no doubt recall this sort of stuff. My current peeve is the denigration of sRGB. It's a color-space that makes so much sense. And I'm super excited about new wide-gamut displays, and more color. At same time I see how these have been such a can of worms for so many early adopters. There's an amateur GIMP aficionado—I can't recall her name at moment—who has some great web write-ups on about how when you say sRGB, it's not even clear what you're talking about because there are numerous profiles circulating define it differently. Holy cow! And she has this great tract about how you can have a wide-gamut display that can claim Adobe RGB coverage, but actually significantly not cover sRGB. I thrive on these sorts of contentions, where when you study a matter and talk it through, community understanding evolves. (If I were better at math, I would've been all over the quantum mechanics revolution and the conundrum of the two-slit experiment, and quantum computing!) And what's a "quantum dot"(R)(TM) OLED technology? Etc. Anyway I have fun think about this stuff and never mind bones of contention. I love the feeling of when I think I understand something and I'm wrong! And also Of course, I'm sometimes just stupidly wrong, like everybody. BTW—I liked your graph of the 2D coverage for the new NEC, P3, Adobe and NTSC. Thanks for taking the time. And happy to see you over at DisplayCal forum. That SW is super great and it's a lively spot.
On Dec 2, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
My current peeve is the denigration of sRGB. It's a color-space that makes so much sense.
Well it did in circa 1994 or so (with CRTs). I don't see what it brings to the party today. And far, far too many urban legends surrounding it.
And I'm super excited about new wide-gamut displays, and more color.
More? Maybe wider gamut which is nothing really that new. Even on iPhone and iPad. Anyway, for those of us still printing, you can't do much worse than sRGB ;-} Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/>
Of course, it brings nothing to the party today! It's maligned today. Yet, it's an excellent compromise of concerns from the perspective of history. My earlier point—which context is a bit elusive here—was that if you think eciRGB is a great compromise today—and over at DisplayCal forum a knowledgeable user strongly makes this point—well I say: isn't it interesting that eciRGB gamut is NTSC 1953! So what happened? Did color engineers just not care? Why was there this compromise toward 709? And given that everyone who has ever owned a personal computer owes a debt to the television industry, it's hard to say "OMG why is my work so hamstrung by this outdated display standard"? In 1980s computing environments, color itself was considered an expensive option that crossed off purchase reqs. In my experience, it was the rise of the web that made color mandatory. I'd be interested in anecdotes about how the limits of sRGB affect color printing from an artistic perspective. For example, I once met a guy who loved orchids and was disappointed with his inkjet printer because it couldn't do pinks (magentas) that looks anything like his 2004 era color PC display. He wasn't concerned about matching the flowers! Lol The history of great art photography is black-and-white. And it still is. For example, the movie industry had the marvel of Technicolor which it showed off in prestige roadshow pictures. Is there a similar moment in color still printing? Yes Cibachrome was great looking, just like Kodachrome is loved. But is there an Ansel Adams of color? So at what point would you say that color radically changed art printing? Not the photography of other media, but as an artistic aspect in and of itself. Desktop publishing color has traditionally about simulation and visualization of pre-existing media, and how printing gamuts affect this. Most color fidelity convos go something like "Well this system can't reproduce this other thing, so..." and the requirement gets constructed from a simulation requirement. In 1953, was SMPTE thinking "Eventually we'll use this tech to simulate 6 color inkjets"? So I'm curious to hear you put the statement "you can't get any worse than sRGB" into a perspective of a history of printing, and was there a seminal point at which transcending the limits of sRGB profoundly changed photography? Yea, sRGB is limited, no argument. But I've never come across anyone who from a pure perspective of aesthetic appreciation looked at an sRGB display and remarked, that's OK but it's missing something. Of course you can see differences, and once you have seen them you can train yourself to notice in rarified conditions. However, I've heard plenty of people say "my display color is too intense" when looking at web color on a WCG display and wonder what's going wrong. On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:58 PM Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
On Dec 2, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
My current peeve is the denigration of sRGB. It's a color-space that makes so much sense.
Well it did in circa 1994 or so (with CRTs). I don't see what it brings to the party today. And far, far too many urban legends surrounding it.
And I'm super excited about new wide-gamut displays, and more color.
More? Maybe wider gamut which is nothing really that new. Even on iPhone and iPad.
Anyway, for those of us still printing, you can't do much worse than sRGB ;-}
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/> _______________________________________________ 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
On Dec 2, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
I'm curious to hear you put the statement "you can't get any worse than sRGB" into a perspective of a history of printing, and was there a seminal point at which transcending the limits of sRGB profoundly changed photography?
Sure: The benefits of wide gamut working spaces on printed output: This three part, 32 minute video covers why a wide gamut RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB can produce superior quality output to print. Part 1 discusses how the supplied Gamut Test File was created and shows two prints output to an Epson 3880 using ProPhoto RGB and sRGB, how the deficiencies of sRGB gamut affects final output quality. Part 1 discusses what to look for on your own prints in terms of better color output. It also covers Photoshop’s Assign Profile command and how wide gamut spaces mishandled produce dull or over saturated colors due to user error. Part 2 goes into detail about how to print two versions of the properly converted Gamut Test File file in Photoshop using Photoshop’s Print command to correctly setup the test files for output. It covers the Convert to Profile command for preparing test files for output to a lab. Part 3 goes into color theory and illustrates why a wide gamut space produces not only move vibrant and saturated color but detail and color separation compared to a small gamut working space like sRGB. High Resolution Video: http://digitaldog.net/files/WideGamutPrintVideo.mov Low Resolution (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLlr7wpAZKs&feature=youtu.be
A bit of technical discussion about NTSC and television: SMPTE had no influence as far as I know on the selection of NTSC primaries. The choices were made mainly by RCA as part of the second NTSC (National Television Systems Committee; the first NTSC established monochrome standards in 1941). The standards, adopted by the FCC, simply stated that the signal should be "suitable" for the specified primaries, with no details. Because the early image orthicon cameras were noisy and used drift-prone tube circuits, it was impractical to use matrixing of the R,G,B signals to match the primaries, and as a result the camera optical filters were carefully chosen to match the NTSC phosphors. They also used the old trick of film and print reproduction in using narrow band color separation filters to enhance the saturation of ordinary object spectra. The noise limitations also meant that it was unreasonable to actually match the desired gamma correction of 1/2.2 (cameras were actually designed to about 1/1.75), so that acceptable tone rendition was obtained by careful exposure plus playing with the black level. The resulting signal gave a high-contrast reproduction that was in a way similar to Technicolor, and partially compensated for the low contrast ratio of early CRTs due to their high screen reflectivity. However, the lowlight contrast was lost in the process, and gradually improved as the display contrast ratios got better, and rather dramatically when the image orthicons were replaced by the much less noisy Plumbicon pickup tubes, plus gamma correction actually 1/2.2 and proper color matrixing. Even with these changes, there is typically a discrepancy between the saturation capability of highlights and lowlights in subtractive vs. additive systems, with subtractive systems (printing) excelling in lowlights, and emissive displays excelling in highlights. The net result is that a display with NTSC primaries, with correct black level and viewed under dim ambient, can equal or exceed the gamut of most surface colors, whereas, an sRGB display is lacking in at least the cyan and "true green" regions. The compromise to Rec 709 is strictly because those were the primaries that were available that made bright CRTs with nearly equal gun currents. The unequal gun currents in early "NTSC" CRTs were a terrible headache in terms of maintaining equal spot size and gray scale tracking between the guns. One should also note that the psychophysical sensation of "colorfulness" is affected greatly by display brightness, and the TV companies and their customers recognized this, although they may not have had the research to support it at the time. In any case, customers much preferred brighter pictures, a difference they could see immediately and continually, while they could not detect gamut limitations without seeing the TV side by side with the program stage itself. -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users <colorsync-users-bounces+waynebretl=cox.net@lists.apple.com> On Behalf Of Wire ~ via colorsync-users Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 6:21 PM To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Subject: Re: NEC PA271Q "Native" chromaticities Of course, it brings nothing to the party today! It's maligned today. Yet, it's an excellent compromise of concerns from the perspective of history. My earlier point—which context is a bit elusive here—was that if you think eciRGB is a great compromise today—and over at DisplayCal forum a knowledgeable user strongly makes this point—well I say: isn't it interesting that eciRGB gamut is NTSC 1953! So what happened? Did color engineers just not care? Why was there this compromise toward 709? And given that everyone who has ever owned a personal computer owes a debt to the television industry, it's hard to say "OMG why is my work so hamstrung by this outdated display standard"? In 1980s computing environments, color itself was considered an expensive option that crossed off purchase reqs. In my experience, it was the rise of the web that made color mandatory. I'd be interested in anecdotes about how the limits of sRGB affect color printing from an artistic perspective. For example, I once met a guy who loved orchids and was disappointed with his inkjet printer because it couldn't do pinks (magentas) that looks anything like his 2004 era color PC display. He wasn't concerned about matching the flowers! Lol The history of great art photography is black-and-white. And it still is. For example, the movie industry had the marvel of Technicolor which it showed off in prestige roadshow pictures. Is there a similar moment in color still printing? Yes Cibachrome was great looking, just like Kodachrome is loved. But is there an Ansel Adams of color? So at what point would you say that color radically changed art printing? Not the photography of other media, but as an artistic aspect in and of itself. Desktop publishing color has traditionally about simulation and visualization of pre-existing media, and how printing gamuts affect this. Most color fidelity convos go something like "Well this system can't reproduce this other thing, so..." and the requirement gets constructed from a simulation requirement. In 1953, was SMPTE thinking "Eventually we'll use this tech to simulate 6 color inkjets"? So I'm curious to hear you put the statement "you can't get any worse than sRGB" into a perspective of a history of printing, and was there a seminal point at which transcending the limits of sRGB profoundly changed photography? Yea, sRGB is limited, no argument. But I've never come across anyone who from a pure perspective of aesthetic appreciation looked at an sRGB display and remarked, that's OK but it's missing something. Of course you can see differences, and once you have seen them you can train yourself to notice in rarified conditions. However, I've heard plenty of people say "my display color is too intense" when looking at web color on a WCG display and wonder what's going wrong. On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:58 PM Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
On Dec 2, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
My current peeve is the denigration of sRGB. It's a color-space that makes so much sense.
Well it did in circa 1994 or so (with CRTs). I don't see what it brings to the party today. And far, far too many urban legends surrounding it.
And I'm super excited about new wide-gamut displays, and more color.
More? Maybe wider gamut which is nothing really that new. Even on iPhone and iPad.
Anyway, for those of us still printing, you can't do much worse than sRGB ;-}
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/> _______________________________________________ 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%40lexipha nicism.com
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/waynebretl%40cox.net This email sent to waynebretl@cox.net
I just acquired a Dell UP2516D (QHD 2560x1440 PremierColor) and thought maybe others interested in the gamut plots for the NEC would like to know what this display looks like. This is a commodities display for color pros. It claims Adobe RGB and DCI P3 coverage. I measured using a Monaco Optix (DTP-94) and latest version of DisplayCal (see caveat below). Here are the gamut plots: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DSpUzIAgxsiG8qi8FKr2uJ5_P4MNmTKu These reveal that Dells claims are dead on. Its modes are: sRGB, Adobe RGB, DCI-P3 (! the cinema one), and "custom color" which opens up the whole gamut and allows setting of gain and bias for pre-cal of white and black. Custom color has native device TRC. This unit has very good uniformity, can do 400 cd/m, and looks good out of the box. It comes with a certificate of < 2 dE across the board for Adobe RGB mode. I will have to measure this later but is appears believable I prefer newer Display P3 so I target an sRGB TRC in a custom color mode. Limits: - Preset white points looks too warm. Need to measure, but I do my own cal so hmm. - DCI-P3 mode is the cinema variant: D63, G2.6. - 8-bit data path - No HDR Connects with DisplayPort and HMDI. I'm using an old 2008 Mac Pro with GTX-680 and DVI-I to HDMI converter. Works perfectly. And on Mac Mojave with widest-gamut cal everything looks right: Mac UI, Adobe, Firefox browser... Benefits of wide gamut covering print and sRGB-for-2020. I'm super pleased with how this is working. As someone at DisplayCal forums said about my quibbling over Adobe RGB vs P3 "Why not have it all!" Price: $299 new direct from Dell CAVEAT—According to DisplayCal guys and web-lore, some versions of DTP-94 unit may not be suitable for wide-gamut application, but this unit is producing profiles that make sense and look right to me.) On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:44 PM Wire ~ <wire@lexiphanicism.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:59 PM <graxx@videotron.ca> wrote:
I wish to better understand the issue that Florian spoke to Apple about, "... custom XYZLUT display profiles that meet spec but make MacOS glitch out". I'll have to research this on DisplayCAL, perhaps it is documented? Could this every be fixed?
I'm not advocating for either Microsoft or Apple or Argyll or DisplayCAL, I'm not surprised Apple may have changed things to make their lives simpler, or honestly screwed things up badly for developers.
Which side are you on, anyway?
/ Roger
I'm not on any side. I'm fascinated by the subject. I don't work for anyone pertaining to this subject. It's important to me as an amateur.
In a nutshell, you can create XYZLUT profiles using DisplayCal on MacOS and the OS will let you select them in the Displays > Color panel without complaint then various Apple-supplied programs will just render your graphics completely wrong.
Adobe works.
Complaining to Apple is unproductive, and Florian had to put a caveat into the DisplayCal UI to tell users to avoid that style of profile on Mac.
I suggested he take it up over here at the "Apple Colorsync Mailing List" though he was doubtful, noting that this list is mostly talk about prepress.
As I was looking more into the matter, my experience is that depending on the profile I use on my up-to-date Mac, I get subtly different renderings depending on which software I use to work with graphics, even when all are supposed to be color-managed!
I wrote these concerns up (not very well) and submitted them on this forum a few months ago, but no one here cares about Colorsync anymore. You guys all use Windows, OMG. Who knows why Apple even keeps this list around any more> Maybe because this place used to be a hotbed of well-informed and adventurous discussion, back when good 'ol Bruce Fraser was writing clear tracts about how to make color management work in the "real world". (The Epson Inkjet list was also a great forum, back in the day),
So, having watched this stuff evolve for decades, I'm dumbfounded that for most users, color-management still is a complete mystery of behaviors, and more complex than ever. Kind of like the American commonwealth.
I've no axe to grind re platforms. I work with Mac, Windows and Linux (I lived through the Unix Wars and done systems programming for novel super-computer architectures on Unix. And I've done tons of IT for these platforms. My personal systems are Apple (and VMs for the others), because I found Mac most elegant around time of Centris 650 when I bought my first home system, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. And the desktop publishing revolution belonged to Mac. I hate Microsoft as a general rule. Now everyone hates Apple. I see history sort of repeating i(it never really does) with iOS and Android. It pleases me that Microsoft (Balmer) thought phones were stupid in 2007 and a market not worth pursuing, and when they discovered how wrong Balmer was tried to re-invent Windows the mobile wworld just rejected them. Meanwhile Mac had gone Darwin. Saying yes to Android is saying please hijack my mobile and dox me for ransom, unless it's Android straight from Google.
But I'm not invested in seeing any platform succeed or fail. My heart really lives with Richard Stallman's philosophy and work. Industry always thought he was a villain because he advocated that ordinary people should take interest in and ownership of tech that's crucial to their futures.
So I returned to this list because I found DisplayCal, thought it's completely awesome, find the people working on it a super intelligent and well-informed, and when they said they ran into a problem that affects my platform of choice, I figured I should at least come over here and make a stab at seeing whether there's any traction with Apple to get it fixed.
Along way, over at DisplayCal forums, I'm socratically learning about new trends in color and trying to connect these to old interests. Two of my favorite topics are Charles Poyton's wonderful expositions on the importance of understanding gamma—I can remember a guy named Timo who called out problems with non-unity gamma-encoded working spaces and RGB blending in Photoshop and how everyone thought he was a crank because he advocated high-bit linear light editing. A long time later, Adobe added a "Blending Mode Gamma" option to Photoshop. Good work Timo! There was a guy named Dan M. who taught photoshop CMYK by the numbers and he went through a phase where he taught all these prepress guys to "Move to Lab" in Photoshop under an 8-bit regime. Completely unaware that Lab coding efficiency is about %35 percent. Dan was a stickler for quality, but he had no problem that a single editing move could throw have of the information away. And there was endless struggling with platform-dependent color-rendering differences, especially re Epson. Andrew Rodney will no doubt recall this sort of stuff.
My current peeve is the denigration of sRGB. It's a color-space that makes so much sense. And I'm super excited about new wide-gamut displays, and more color. At same time I see how these have been such a can of worms for so many early adopters. There's an amateur GIMP aficionado—I can't recall her name at moment—who has some great web write-ups on about how when you say sRGB, it's not even clear what you're talking about because there are numerous profiles circulating define it differently. Holy cow! And she has this great tract about how you can have a wide-gamut display that can claim Adobe RGB coverage, but actually significantly not cover sRGB. I thrive on these sorts of contentions, where when you study a matter and talk it through, community understanding evolves. (If I were better at math, I would've been all over the quantum mechanics revolution and the conundrum of the two-slit experiment, and quantum computing!) And what's a "quantum dot"(R)(TM) OLED technology? Etc.
Anyway I have fun think about this stuff and never mind bones of contention. I love the feeling of when I think I understand something and I'm wrong! And also Of course, I'm sometimes just stupidly wrong, like everybody.
BTW—I liked your graph of the 2D coverage for the new NEC, P3, Adobe and NTSC. Thanks for taking the time.
And happy to see you over at DisplayCal forum. That SW is super great and it's a lively spot.
Re DELL UP2516D It might not be clear from previous message, this Dell is remarkable because it's so inexpensive given its color capabilities. You can get 4 of these for the price of 1 NEC. If you accept 25in QHD res. and lack of other potentially valuable QA features in NEC. I added DisplayCal measurement details for "Adobe RGB" mode to the info folder I shared. In summary: - Adobe RGB mode measured whitepoint varies from 6300K to 6550K from the left side to the right side of the panel, with a slight magenta bias to the white point. (this isn't shown in the stats file I provided) - Adobe RGB gamut coverage is 99%. - Measured dE for Adobe RGB mode is MAX 2.1, AVE 0.65 (!) - P3 coverage is 97% in DCI-P3 mode - Native mode covers both Adobe RGB and P3 So it seems not unreasonable to use this display out of box for Adobe RGB and sRGB conformant alignments with no cal required. Didn't test DCI-P3 mode (D63 cinema) as it's not my bailiwick. If you calovrate yourself in native mode under a software CMM regime, you can have sRGB, Adobe RGB and DCI-P3 all at once as specced by your content? Yes, I think so... On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 11:52 AM Wire ~ <wire@lexiphanicism.com> wrote:
I just acquired a Dell UP2516D (QHD 2560x1440 PremierColor) and thought maybe others interested in the gamut plots for the NEC would like to know what this display looks like.
This is a commodities display for color pros. It claims Adobe RGB and DCI P3 coverage.
I measured using a Monaco Optix (DTP-94) and latest version of DisplayCal (see caveat below).
Here are the gamut plots: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DSpUzIAgxsiG8qi8FKr2uJ5_P4MNmTKu
These reveal that Dells claims are dead on.
Its modes are: sRGB, Adobe RGB, DCI-P3 (! the cinema one), and "custom color" which opens up the whole gamut and allows setting of gain and bias for pre-cal of white and black. Custom color has native device TRC.
This unit has very good uniformity, can do 400 cd/m, and looks good out of the box. It comes with a certificate of < 2 dE across the board for Adobe RGB mode. I will have to measure this later but is appears believable
I prefer newer Display P3 so I target an sRGB TRC in a custom color mode.
Limits: - Preset white points looks too warm. Need to measure, but I do my own cal so hmm. - DCI-P3 mode is the cinema variant: D63, G2.6. - 8-bit data path - No HDR
Connects with DisplayPort and HMDI. I'm using an old 2008 Mac Pro with GTX-680 and DVI-I to HDMI converter. Works perfectly. And on Mac Mojave with widest-gamut cal everything looks right: Mac UI, Adobe, Firefox browser... Benefits of wide gamut covering print and sRGB-for-2020. I'm super pleased with how this is working. As someone at DisplayCal forums said about my quibbling over Adobe RGB vs P3 "Why not have it all!"
Price: $299 new direct from Dell
CAVEAT—According to DisplayCal guys and web-lore, some versions of DTP-94 unit may not be suitable for wide-gamut application, but this unit is producing profiles that make sense and look right to me.)
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:44 PM Wire ~ <wire@lexiphanicism.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:59 PM <graxx@videotron.ca> wrote:
I wish to better understand the issue that Florian spoke to Apple about, "... custom XYZLUT display profiles that meet spec but make MacOS glitch out". I'll have to research this on DisplayCAL, perhaps it is documented? Could this every be fixed?
I'm not advocating for either Microsoft or Apple or Argyll or DisplayCAL, I'm not surprised Apple may have changed things to make their lives simpler, or honestly screwed things up badly for developers.
Which side are you on, anyway?
/ Roger
I'm not on any side. I'm fascinated by the subject. I don't work for anyone pertaining to this subject. It's important to me as an amateur.
In a nutshell, you can create XYZLUT profiles using DisplayCal on MacOS and the OS will let you select them in the Displays > Color panel without complaint then various Apple-supplied programs will just render your graphics completely wrong.
Adobe works.
Complaining to Apple is unproductive, and Florian had to put a caveat into the DisplayCal UI to tell users to avoid that style of profile on Mac.
I suggested he take it up over here at the "Apple Colorsync Mailing List" though he was doubtful, noting that this list is mostly talk about prepress.
As I was looking more into the matter, my experience is that depending on the profile I use on my up-to-date Mac, I get subtly different renderings depending on which software I use to work with graphics, even when all are supposed to be color-managed!
I wrote these concerns up (not very well) and submitted them on this forum a few months ago, but no one here cares about Colorsync anymore. You guys all use Windows, OMG. Who knows why Apple even keeps this list around any more> Maybe because this place used to be a hotbed of well-informed and adventurous discussion, back when good 'ol Bruce Fraser was writing clear tracts about how to make color management work in the "real world". (The Epson Inkjet list was also a great forum, back in the day),
So, having watched this stuff evolve for decades, I'm dumbfounded that for most users, color-management still is a complete mystery of behaviors, and more complex than ever. Kind of like the American commonwealth.
I've no axe to grind re platforms. I work with Mac, Windows and Linux (I lived through the Unix Wars and done systems programming for novel super-computer architectures on Unix. And I've done tons of IT for these platforms. My personal systems are Apple (and VMs for the others), because I found Mac most elegant around time of Centris 650 when I bought my first home system, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. And the desktop publishing revolution belonged to Mac. I hate Microsoft as a general rule. Now everyone hates Apple. I see history sort of repeating i(it never really does) with iOS and Android. It pleases me that Microsoft (Balmer) thought phones were stupid in 2007 and a market not worth pursuing, and when they discovered how wrong Balmer was tried to re-invent Windows the mobile wworld just rejected them. Meanwhile Mac had gone Darwin. Saying yes to Android is saying please hijack my mobile and dox me for ransom, unless it's Android straight from Google.
But I'm not invested in seeing any platform succeed or fail. My heart really lives with Richard Stallman's philosophy and work. Industry always thought he was a villain because he advocated that ordinary people should take interest in and ownership of tech that's crucial to their futures.
So I returned to this list because I found DisplayCal, thought it's completely awesome, find the people working on it a super intelligent and well-informed, and when they said they ran into a problem that affects my platform of choice, I figured I should at least come over here and make a stab at seeing whether there's any traction with Apple to get it fixed.
Along way, over at DisplayCal forums, I'm socratically learning about new trends in color and trying to connect these to old interests. Two of my favorite topics are Charles Poyton's wonderful expositions on the importance of understanding gamma—I can remember a guy named Timo who called out problems with non-unity gamma-encoded working spaces and RGB blending in Photoshop and how everyone thought he was a crank because he advocated high-bit linear light editing. A long time later, Adobe added a "Blending Mode Gamma" option to Photoshop. Good work Timo! There was a guy named Dan M. who taught photoshop CMYK by the numbers and he went through a phase where he taught all these prepress guys to "Move to Lab" in Photoshop under an 8-bit regime. Completely unaware that Lab coding efficiency is about %35 percent. Dan was a stickler for quality, but he had no problem that a single editing move could throw have of the information away. And there was endless struggling with platform-dependent color-rendering differences, especially re Epson. Andrew Rodney will no doubt recall this sort of stuff.
My current peeve is the denigration of sRGB. It's a color-space that makes so much sense. And I'm super excited about new wide-gamut displays, and more color. At same time I see how these have been such a can of worms for so many early adopters. There's an amateur GIMP aficionado—I can't recall her name at moment—who has some great web write-ups on about how when you say sRGB, it's not even clear what you're talking about because there are numerous profiles circulating define it differently. Holy cow! And she has this great tract about how you can have a wide-gamut display that can claim Adobe RGB coverage, but actually significantly not cover sRGB. I thrive on these sorts of contentions, where when you study a matter and talk it through, community understanding evolves. (If I were better at math, I would've been all over the quantum mechanics revolution and the conundrum of the two-slit experiment, and quantum computing!) And what's a "quantum dot"(R)(TM) OLED technology? Etc.
Anyway I have fun think about this stuff and never mind bones of contention. I love the feeling of when I think I understand something and I'm wrong! And also Of course, I'm sometimes just stupidly wrong, like everybody.
BTW—I liked your graph of the 2D coverage for the new NEC, P3, Adobe and NTSC. Thanks for taking the time.
And happy to see you over at DisplayCal forum. That SW is super great and it's a lively spot.
participants (3)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
Wayne Bretl
-
Wire ~