Posted by David Chauvin on September 11, 2013 at 8:56 AM
Now that I have upgraded my processing hardware I've started researching monitor replacement. IPS seems to be the tech of choice at the moment but of course there are multiple flavors and I think I've got a basic handle on this. Wide gamut vs sRGB is the other factor and this is where I'm getting a bit lost in the weeds. As I've read, aRGB monitors can wreak saturation havoc with non color managed applications and content. I've gone over all the search results for "wide gamut" in this forum and that has been a great help. So now I think I understand the basics of the photo editing side of wide gamut. Proper calibration, file conversion and profile embedding for different outputs seem to be the keys to maintain color consistency.
The question I have not seen addressed is how other non-photo applications (Word, Excel,Power Point, etc) appear in the wider space profile. Do these appear differently? Any info or links to informative sites you can provide regarding working with wide gamut hardware would be greatly appreciated.
My OS is Win7 Pro 64 with an nVidia K1000M graphics card (10 bit color capable) in case that makes any difference.
Thanks,
David
BTW,,,,I'm leaning towards 24", 16:10 ratio. Prices for larger than 24" wide gamut monitors quickly go through the roof and out of my range.
Posted by Yiming Hu on September 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM
Photos using the sRGB profile will appear overly saturated in non-color managed software, include the Internet Explorer.
Photos using the aRGB profile will appear close to normal, if the gamut of the monitor is close to aRGB.
Shame on Microsoft.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on September 11, 2013 at 4:02 PM
I use a Dell U3011 and dealing with wide gamut can be a pain. If you set the Preset to sRGB you won't have issues but that defeats the purpose of a WG monitor, lol.
Here's the scoop I've learned over the last two years: obviously you have to calibrate the thing, I use the Spyder4Pro. You need to calibrate even if the factory settings are accurate, etc, because your color-managed apps need the profile to work with or you will have blazing garish reds like you've never seen before. Once you have a profile, you absolutely need to use color managed apps. Obviously Adobe stuff is, but as far as good ol' Windows goes, not everything is color-managed (meaning it uses the profile you make with the colorimeter). Right off the bat, IE is not a color-managed browser. Drives me batty dealing with it. When I upload to NPN and then look at it in IE, it looks like it has a red mask over it, lol! You have to use Firefox or Chrome or Safari. If you want to quickly look at a jpeg, forget Microsoft Office Picture Manager, not managed. Fortunately Windows 7 and 8 provide Windows Photo Viewer which DOES respect the profile. But get this: Explorer and Windows itself, NOT color managed! Make a jpeg from an image you've taken and Set It as Background and let the room light up red on a WG monitor. Crazy. Explorer is also not, so looking at files in Explorer in Large mode displays these saturated square globs. You get used to it, but it's a pain sometimes. HOWEVER: editing a full 14-bit raw image in ProPhotoRGB on a calibrated WG monitor makes it worth it IMO. And now that we can send 16-bit data to our Canon printers (well, 14-bit image in a 16 bit container actually), I'm now getting brilliant accurate colors with NO banding. So to me the fussy WFG monitors are worth dealing with.
BTW, I mentioned Canon printers because Canon took the time to write XPS drivers for their printers. These drivers utilize the pathway that Windows 7 & 8 provide to allow 16-bit printing to happen. Win7/8 isn't 16 bit native like Mac's OSX, but it provides the path in the event that the printer manufacturer decides to write 16 bit drivers, which Canon has (hence, that's why they have drivers available and then this second add-on driver named XPS). Epson unfortunately has not provided 16 bit drivers for some weird reason (boo, hiss). In most cases you don't see a difference like with indoor people shots. But with a 10-cartridge Pro9500 printer printing skies and landscapes, you absolutely get better results, and the WG monitor is the starting point for it all in the post workflow.
BTW, if you go with a Dell IPS WG monitor, make sure that after you clear the settings on the monitor with the Factory Restore option, you go into color mode and change it to Custom Color. THEN calibrate. If you forget that step you'll have horrid results. BTW, the U2412M is a popular 16:10 24" IPS monitor, I used one at my desk at work and it looks great, but it is only 6 bit. The U2410 and U2413 are higher priced because they are 10-bit (I think). There was a place on eBay two weeks ago selling MFG refurbed U3011's for $650 delivered, maybe keep an eye out for those. There is nothing like having this movie screen of a monitor for photo and video editing, it's gorgeous. #DanglingTheCarrot
Posted by David Chauvin on September 11, 2013 at 6:50 PM
So it seems that separate profiles are needed for different color spaces if I want non color managed applications to display accurately.
I have the X-Rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter so should be set for profiling hardware. The Dell U2413 looks interesting but a lot more research is needed before deciding. Is there a major difference in the ability to calibrate the monitor LUT vs creating an ICC profile for the graphics card? Will this produce a more accurate calibration?
"So it seems that separate profiles are needed for different color spaces if I want non color managed applications to display accurately."
Not for the monitor. Calibrate the monitor to it's full 'native' gamut. If you're using a non-color managed application, don't assign a color profile to the image, or use sRGB. At least that's how I understand things--I could be wrong, though.
Hardware calibration will always be more accurate than a profile alone. When you do a hardware calibration, the software also creates a profile that's used by the OS to reference the hardware LUT.
Since you already have a very nice colorimeter, you might look at the NEC Multisync PA Series monitors with SpectraView calibration software. Your colorimeter is compatible with SpectraView. I use SpectraView with my NEC monitor (P221W). It is quick and easy--basically it's a hands-off operation. It's worth exploring, in my opinion.
Be sure to look at the color gamut specs for any screen. Even though a panel may be an ips type, it's ability to render wide gamut color spaces may be limited.
--P
Posted by David Chauvin on September 12, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Preston,,,,,,Whatever I finally decide on will be wide gamut. Any disadvantages seem to be outweighed by the color accuracy in editing photos. I've been going through the specs at tftcentral.com. They do seriously thorough reviews.
The Dell U2413 looks very interesting. It can be monitor LUT calibrated.
The NEC PA241BW looks great and the newer PA242BW has just been released (not yet reviewed). These beat the Dell in screen uniformity. From what I can see, both the Dell and new NEC use the same GB-R backlight panel but NEC has added tech to control brightness from corner to corner. It's also nearly a third more for the 241 and double the price for the 242 (without the Spectraview software).
Discussion
5 repliesThe question I have not seen addressed is how other non-photo applications (Word, Excel,Power Point, etc) appear in the wider space profile. Do these appear differently? Any info or links to informative sites you can provide regarding working with wide gamut hardware would be greatly appreciated.
My OS is Win7 Pro 64 with an nVidia K1000M graphics card (10 bit color capable) in case that makes any difference.
Thanks,
David
BTW,,,,I'm leaning towards 24", 16:10 ratio. Prices for larger than 24" wide gamut monitors quickly go through the roof and out of my range.
Photos using the aRGB profile will appear close to normal, if the gamut of the monitor is close to aRGB.
Shame on Microsoft.
Here's the scoop I've learned over the last two years: obviously you have to calibrate the thing, I use the Spyder4Pro. You need to calibrate even if the factory settings are accurate, etc, because your color-managed apps need the profile to work with or you will have blazing garish reds like you've never seen before. Once you have a profile, you absolutely need to use color managed apps. Obviously Adobe stuff is, but as far as good ol' Windows goes, not everything is color-managed (meaning it uses the profile you make with the colorimeter). Right off the bat, IE is not a color-managed browser. Drives me batty dealing with it. When I upload to NPN and then look at it in IE, it looks like it has a red mask over it, lol! You have to use Firefox or Chrome or Safari. If you want to quickly look at a jpeg, forget Microsoft Office Picture Manager, not managed. Fortunately Windows 7 and 8 provide Windows Photo Viewer which DOES respect the profile. But get this: Explorer and Windows itself, NOT color managed! Make a jpeg from an image you've taken and Set It as Background and let the room light up red on a WG monitor. Crazy. Explorer is also not, so looking at files in Explorer in Large mode displays these saturated square globs. You get used to it, but it's a pain sometimes. HOWEVER: editing a full 14-bit raw image in ProPhotoRGB on a calibrated WG monitor makes it worth it IMO. And now that we can send 16-bit data to our Canon printers (well, 14-bit image in a 16 bit container actually), I'm now getting brilliant accurate colors with NO banding. So to me the fussy WFG monitors are worth dealing with.
BTW, I mentioned Canon printers because Canon took the time to write XPS drivers for their printers. These drivers utilize the pathway that Windows 7 & 8 provide to allow 16-bit printing to happen. Win7/8 isn't 16 bit native like Mac's OSX, but it provides the path in the event that the printer manufacturer decides to write 16 bit drivers, which Canon has (hence, that's why they have drivers available and then this second add-on driver named XPS). Epson unfortunately has not provided 16 bit drivers for some weird reason (boo, hiss). In most cases you don't see a difference like with indoor people shots. But with a 10-cartridge Pro9500 printer printing skies and landscapes, you absolutely get better results, and the WG monitor is the starting point for it all in the post workflow.
BTW, if you go with a Dell IPS WG monitor, make sure that after you clear the settings on the monitor with the Factory Restore option, you go into color mode and change it to Custom Color. THEN calibrate. If you forget that step you'll have horrid results. BTW, the U2412M is a popular 16:10 24" IPS monitor, I used one at my desk at work and it looks great, but it is only 6 bit. The U2410 and U2413 are higher priced because they are 10-bit (I think). There was a place on eBay two weeks ago selling MFG refurbed U3011's for $650 delivered, maybe keep an eye out for those. There is nothing like having this movie screen of a monitor for photo and video editing, it's gorgeous. #DanglingTheCarrot
I have the X-Rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter so should be set for profiling hardware. The Dell U2413 looks interesting but a lot more research is needed before deciding. Is there a major difference in the ability to calibrate the monitor LUT vs creating an ICC profile for the graphics card? Will this produce a more accurate calibration?
Thanks for the feedback,
David
Not for the monitor. Calibrate the monitor to it's full 'native' gamut. If you're using a non-color managed application, don't assign a color profile to the image, or use sRGB. At least that's how I understand things--I could be wrong, though.
Hardware calibration will always be more accurate than a profile alone. When you do a hardware calibration, the software also creates a profile that's used by the OS to reference the hardware LUT.
Since you already have a very nice colorimeter, you might look at the NEC Multisync PA Series monitors with SpectraView calibration software. Your colorimeter is compatible with SpectraView. I use SpectraView with my NEC monitor (P221W). It is quick and easy--basically it's a hands-off operation. It's worth exploring, in my opinion.
Be sure to look at the color gamut specs for any screen. Even though a panel may be an ips type, it's ability to render wide gamut color spaces may be limited.
--P
The Dell U2413 looks very interesting. It can be monitor LUT calibrated.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2413.htm
The NEC PA241BW looks great and the newer PA242BW has just been released (not yet reviewed). These beat the Dell in screen uniformity. From what I can see, both the Dell and new NEC use the same GB-R backlight panel but NEC has added tech to control brightness from corner to corner. It's also nearly a third more for the 241 and double the price for the 242 (without the Spectraview software).
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_pa241w.htm
Dell 24"WS LG.Display AH-IPS (LM240WU9-SLA1)
NEC 24"WS LG.Display AH-IPS (LM240WU9)
I'm in no rush so more research is in order. Thanks again for the feedback. It's always appreciated.
David