Wide gamut monitor?

[Meekyman]

Hi,

There is currently a thread on monitors and not wanting to hijack the OP thread, I also plan on a new computer/monitor and am trying to decide if a wide gamut printer is what I need. I am confused a little about how you'd exactly use the wide gamut monitor and whether the software I use and harware I plan on buying would really get the most out of/support a wide gamut monitor. I'm thinking Dell u2413 or Eizo Flexscan SX2462W. I believe these are 10 but panels and that the calibration occurs on the monitor itself and not the graphics card of the computer? I can understand the benefit of this.

I am new to LF and plan on buying an Epson V700 to scan at home - yet more to learn. I currently have a crappy old dell laptop which is at least calibrated regularly and have an Epson R800 printer, uses pigment inks. I have custom profiles for my printer using my paper and my inks. I plan on buying an IT8 target for slide film so that the scanner is also profiled.

Currently I edit in Photoshop element 6.0 (PSE 6.0) and capture NX2 and can see myself possibly getting PSE 11, but no plans to get the full photoshop unless it becomes really necessary. I currently have NX2 set to Nikon aRGB and PSE defaults to sRGB unless I shoot aRGB (which I do on Nikon RAW). With the scanner, once I scan in can I open as aRGB?

After editing, mainly in NX2, I open a copy of my image, soft-proof with the profile for the printer and then try to edit that copy so that it looks like my original edit. Then I hope that which I put on my website matches that which I print. Am I doing this wrong in anyway? How would having a wider gamit screen help this? If it has modes like aRGB and sRGB on the monitor, surely even if you are in aRGB mode and you "save for web" which converts to sRGB do you need to change the monitor to that mode or will it display fine in aRGB mode just with a compressed colour range?

Any clear answers would be appreciated!

Thanks

Graham

P.S If certain hardware (graphics card?) is needed to support 10 bit panels then let me know as I will have to factor that into the system cost and is it really worth it?

[paulr]

It's really pretty straightforward, and it sounds like you have the basic concepts.

If you shoot raw, there's no profile attached. Chosing a profile in camera just effects the jpeg. Which is good; you don't want the camera doing any color space conversions.

Generally you want your working space on the computer to be the largest one reasonably possible. Currenltly that's ProPhoto RGB. This will guarantee that the software doesn't clip any colors without you knowing about it. This is a wider space than Adobe RGB, but Lightroom and Photoshop offer tools to let you see if any channels are clipping.

You can then soft proof to your printer, or to sRGB for the web. Or to the profile of a publication or printing service that you send a file to. The only times I do profile conversions are when I export files for the web or to give to someone else.

As long as your images are properly tagged, and your system is calibrated and profiled, your monitor will display them properly.

[Meekyman]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your reply. Was good to hear what you said.

SO, on that basis I should have no worries going for a wider gamut display?

Any views on the Dell u2413 or Eizo SX2462W? There's quite a difference in price - but in quality? Longevity or reliability?

Cheers

Graham

[paulr]

I don't have experience with those monitors. By reputation the Eizos (at least their top line) are as good as it gets, but not necessarily great values. The Dells seem to be variable. Some individual models in the past have gotten good reviews, while others haven't. Sometimes it can be hard to tell what you're getting from them.

I haven't heard many reliability issues with LCD monitors. Longevity is mostly about the fluorescent tube that makes them glow. Newer LED designs last longer, but for whatever reason the best Eizos and NECs don't use this technology, at least not since I last checked. You should expect much longer life and better stability over time than you could ever get from a CRT.

Definitely go wide gamut if you're working in color. In many cases it won't make any difference, but when it does, it will save a lot in time and materials.

The NEC PA series have been the value leaders in high end monitors for the last few years. I'd give those a look if you haven't already.

[Meekyman]

Thanks once again Paul for taking the time to reply. Much appreciated.

Graham

[pherold]

Here's a drawback to getting a wide gamut monitor:
There is a potential that you could see some banding - visual break up of a gradient with a wide gamut monitor, especially one without internal graphics like the Dell. Some of the better monitors have graphic processors built right into the monitors themselves. These LUTs/Curves can have 10-, 12- or 14-bits per color channel. Even a mere 10-bit internal LUT will get you a whopping 1024 points of adjustment to the color in the display. The computer's video card will in most case be limited to 8 bits, which is only 256 levels of adjustment. When you have to stretch those 256 point of adjustment over a much wider area of color saturation, you can see banding. Whether you notice it much or whether it will bother you kind of depends on you.

The benefits to getting an NEC PA series or an Eizo include having good uniformity as well. If you see a subtle change of hue in a corner of your image, and it looks different if you move the image around your screen, that can cause more work that you want.

[8x10 user]

I was always told that 16.7 million colors, if properly calibrated, was about the limit of what the eye can see. Are you saying that the eye can actually differentiate from a pallet of billions of colors?

I have a LaCie 730 which as far as I know is the widest gamut monitor ever made. I have never noticed banding when using it. I could see for BW work how 10 bit monitors might have some appeal, I believe eizo started making 10 bit BW monitors for digital X-Ray viewing long before 10 bit color came into play.

I agree that using a wide gamut monitor without an internal LUT is a bad idea. That would be like correcting an 8 bit file in PS.

Its been a few years but I have had experience designing custom LUTS for multiple film output devices so I know first hand what the difference between a good 8-bit LUT and a bad one looks like in real world applications.

Here's a drawback to getting a wide gamut monitor:
There is a potential that you could see some banding - visual break up of a gradient with a wide gamut monitor, especially one without internal graphics like the Dell. Some of the better monitors have graphic processors built right into the monitors themselves. These LUTs/Curves can have 10-, 12- or 14-bits per color channel. Even a mere 10-bit internal LUT will get you a whopping 1024 points of adjustment to the color in the display. The computer's video card will in most case be limited to 8 bits, which is only 256 levels of adjustment. When you have to stretch those 256 point of adjustment over a much wider area of color saturation, you can see banding. Whether you notice it much or whether it will bother you kind of depends on you.

The benefits to getting an NEC PA series or an Eizo include having good uniformity as well. If you see a subtle change of hue in a corner of your image, and it looks different if you move the image around your screen, that can cause more work that you want.

[Greg Miller]

There is a potential that you could see some banding - visual break up of a gradient with a wide gamut monitor, especially one without internal graphics like the Dell.

The Dell Ultrasharp line has 10 bit colors with a 14 bit LUT. All things being equal (which we know is not the case), wouldn't the put the Ultrasharp in the same class as other better monitors?

[8x10 user]

A big part of a monitor's quality is related to software and the precision and accuracy of the calibration process as well as the companies quality standards.

I've used a SamSung 20Xl and LaCie 730 and the difference is very noticeable despite having almost identical hardware...

The quality control at LaCie is much better, both of the 20 xl's that I received (returned the first one) were mounted in an unlevel way so that vertical viewing was not possible. The black seems more neutral on the LaCie, the puck, and software is also noticeably better. The calibration process on the LaCie is longer with more patches being measured. With the LaCie software and puck I can also profile our non-LaCie monitors.

[swilf]

After editing, mainly in NX2, I open a copy of my image, soft-proof with the profile for the printer and then try to edit that copy so that it looks like my original edit. Then I hope that which I put on my website matches that which I print. Am I doing this wrong in anyway? How would having a wider gamit screen help this? If it has modes like aRGB and sRGB on the monitor, surely even if you are in aRGB mode and you "save for web" which converts to sRGB do you need to change the monitor to that mode or will it display fine in aRGB mode just with a compressed colour range?

A wide gamut monitor will let you see some highly saturated colors that your printer can reproduce, but your old monitor cannot. If your goal is to match images on your website to your prints, then, I'm afraid, you have chosen the wrong tool. The current standard for Web images is sRGB, and you'll have to limit yourself in printing to colors within the gamut of sRGB. I'm not sure if you really want that.