• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
0

notebook display for image editing?

Explorer ,
Nov 28, 2008 Nov 28, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi. Is there a high-end wide-gammut notebook display for color-critical image editing ?
What notebook would you recommend if you HAD TO recommend one ?
thanks.

Views

10.9K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Nov 28, 2008 Nov 28, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

And any experience with one of these notebooks? :

http://markzware.com/blogs/top-5-laptops-for-displaying-color-gamut/2008/10/14/

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Nov 28, 2008 Nov 28, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I don't think there is such a thing as a "high-end wide-gamut notebook display for color-critical image editing". Not yet, at least.

High-end color-critical image editing should be done using a good-quality desktop display -- well calibrated and profiled, of course.

Calibrated and profiled laptop displays are better than nothing if you are on the road and have nothing else handy -- but at this time they are still very limited in their capabilities by very narrow viewing angles, lack of uniformity, and overall lower manufacturing quality standards, also due to compromises that allow for a lighter and more comfortably portable CPU.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Nov 28, 2008 Nov 28, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

yes, this is commonplace knowledge, which was applicable for a long time. But ... as of today?
Did you check the link? What about the Sony VAIO AW with 137% AdobeRGB coverage ?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Nov 28, 2008 Nov 28, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The issue is not the gamut. It's the viewing angle plus the lack of uniformity. What do the reviews say on those?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Nov 28, 2008 Nov 28, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Not much unfortunately. But the press releases boast considerably increased viewing angles. Could be mere marketing of course. But on the other hand, I can't really see who would buy an expensive 137% AdobeRGB gamut display if viewing angle issues etc. make it useless for serious image editing.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Nov 28, 2008 Nov 28, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Anyway, the gamut is impressive I think. It's a considerably improvement compared to the colors laptop monitors commonly were able to display.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Nov 29, 2008 Nov 29, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Quoted:
"The same is true of printers which can capture a wider gamut
than your screen can display. More recent laptop monitors are
LED backlit, and while at first this was only an incremental
improvement, in recent months laptops have come out that can
actually exceed 100% of the NTSC color gamut."

The article is marketing nonsense. Gamuts cannot be compared
by percentage. Nobody else would use NTSC as a reference.

Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Nov 29, 2008 Nov 29, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Gernot, you can compare Gamuts by percentage, if you display the gamuts as triangles in the CIE 1931 xy chromaticity diagram and compare the triangles' area. Of course, it's not an unproblematic and objective measurement due to the diagram's distortion in the direction of the green point, but still it gives you an idea (for example, considerably smaller than Adobe RGB, same size, or a bit larger). So I'd take the percentages as "rough measurement" ...

In my opinion, it's not marketing nonsense, because the reviewing person didn't favour one brand over the other. I just think that he/she doesn't truly understand the subject. For once, I think he/she confuses NTSC with AdobeRGB (which was subsequently used for all comparisons). And secondly, I think this is entirely false:

>HP didnt give their display quality in terms of the percentage of the gamut, but their press release did say the Elitebooks DreamColor LCD could display over 16 million colors. The Adobe RGB color gamut has approximately 16.7million colors in it, and after doing a little math were given a 96% gamut representation. Not bad at all.

Because in my opinion (comment I made there, awaiting moderation ... will probably never see the light of day over there):

>The Adobe RGB color gamut has approximately 16.7million colors in it. -> This statement is false. Adobe RGB, sRGB (and all other RGB color spaces for that matter) encompass an infinite amount of colors. The total amount of colors used by a given hardware device or software application depends on the bit depth it uses, from 1 bit (=2 colors, usually black and white) to 24bit (=16,7 Mio colors) and more (48bit, 96bit, etc.). So the calculation leading to 96% gamut representation is wrong. Because RGBcolor spaces, define (among other things), where red, green and blue are situated within the CIE Lab color space. How fine the graduation(=increments/nuances) are - and thus how many colors are used - depend on the bit depth."

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Nov 30, 2008 Nov 30, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

>HP didnt give their display quality in terms of the percentage of the gamut, but their press release did say the Elitebooks DreamColor LCD could display over 16 million colors. The Adobe RGB color gamut has approximately 16.7million colors in it, and after doing a little math were given a 96% gamut representation. Not bad at all.

What utter nonsense. Gamut volume and bit depth are two totally separate things.

It's always shocking (though no longer unusual) to see someone writing a review who understands nothing of the basics of what he is writing about. Where was this review posted? Who is this writer?

Any color space, even the smallest ones, can be subdivided into a theoretically infinite number of steps depending on the bit depth used. The only limit is the processing power available. In 8-bit color spaces with 3 primaries (like RGB) you have 16.7 million [2^(8*3)], in 16 bits you have 281 trillion [2^(16*3)], and so on. None of that increases the gamut by one little tiny amount.

Gamut volume, on the other hand, is the portion of human-visible color range that a given color space is capable of reproducing. The maximum possible color range is (roughly speaking) the volume of Lab, which is a device-independent color space, like XYZ or LCH and a few others. But no matter how gamut volume is expressed (by percentage or by using absolute numbers), the "number of colors" is *never* the way it's done, since it's meaningless for the reasons stated above.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Nov 29, 2008 Nov 29, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Mark,

concerning the interpretation of gamuts in the chromaticity
diagram you are partly right.
Partly, because this diagram is a perspective projection
of the 3D color space XYZ onto a 2D plane.

More important (for me) is the question, which RELEVANT
colors are in-gamut or out-of-gamut in several color
spaces.
Relevant are IMO: all Pantone Spot colors, because these
are (when printed) the most vivid real world colors;
then the printer inks, because these define the reproduction;
and finally the colors of photographic targets, because
these were considered as relevant for real world colors
by color scientists.

Pages 15-19 here are showing the results:
http://www.fho-emden.de/~hoffmann/swatch16032005.pdf

Stroked symbols for out-of gamut, filled for in-gamut.

It's perhaps disappointing that vivid orange or yellow
is out-of-gamut for aRGB, but eventually not for printing.

But here comes the solution: in aRGB and even in sRGB
one can boost colors in Lab. From there one can convert
directly into CMYK.
This aspect was always forgotten by 'calibrationist'.
A quite common opinion is, that a camera has to acquire a
scene correctly. That's wrong (except for reproduction).
The image can be converted by manipulations into some-
thing more pleasing.

Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
May 23, 2009 May 23, 2009

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Gernot Hoffmann wrote:

Gamuts cannot be compared
by percentage.

(Mark_J_Peterson) wrote:

Gernot, you can compare Gamuts by percentage, if you display the gamuts as triangles in the CIE 1931 xy chromaticity diagram and compare the triangles' area. Of course, it's not an unproblematic and objective measurement due to the diagram's distortion in the direction of the green point, but still it gives you an idea

Gernot Hoffmann wrote:

concerning the interpretation of gamuts in the chromaticity
diagram you are partly right.
Partly, because this diagram is a perspective projection
of the 3D color space XYZ onto a 2D plane.

Gernot, one could also compare the real gamut volumes in 3D (as opposed to their 2D projection). Wouldn't this be a correct gamut comparison then, despite of your original statement, that gamuts cannot be compared by percentage ?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Nov 29, 2008 Nov 29, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Gernot Hoffmann


what this "Opti RGB" in page 15?

thank

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Nov 29, 2008 Nov 29, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Kokii,

OptiRGB is an exercise - how to define an RGB space
which contains almost all 'relevant' colors and which
has primaries which really exist as physical colors
(here as pure spectral colors).

On the contrary, ProPhoto RGB contains two of three
primaries which are non-existing colors (chromaticities
outside the horseshoe contour). Mathematically possible
but practically a disaster, IMO.

Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Nov 29, 2008 Nov 29, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

A "disaster", uh?

We'll have to tell all those fools who use ProPhoto RGB pronto, then, and let them know with no further delay that all those images that they produced from ProPhoto RGB, and thought looked beautiful, are actually horrible. Because you say so.

Quick!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Nov 29, 2008 Nov 29, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thank you Gernot Hoffmann!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guide ,
Dec 01, 2008 Dec 01, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

>On the contrary, ProPhoto RGB contains two of three
primaries which are non-existing colors (chromaticities
outside the horseshoe contour). Mathematically possible
but practically a disaster, IMO.

Just as Marco did in post #13, I found the above quoted statement in Prof. Hoffmann's #11 disconcerting. I hope further discussion of this is forthcoming.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Dec 01, 2008 Dec 01, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Actually, I would like to replace 'a disaster' by 'ugly':

Let's have a look at the graphic on p.3 in this doc:
http://www.fho-emden.de/~hoffmann/gamcomp18062006.pdf

It shows the chromaticity diagram with gamut triangles for
sRGB, aRGB=Adobe RGB, pRGB=ProPhoto RGB and my private
color space oRGB=OptiRGB.
Furtheron more than 1100 spot inks and the primary inks for
CMYK ISOCoated and for my inkjet, where 'inks' means here
'colors of inks on coated paper under D50'.

Almost all these colors are in-gamut for the wide-gamut color
space oRGB. Compared to this, pRGB seems to be far too large,
which causes quantization problems, unless 16bpc is used.
The primaries for green and blue are non-existing colors
(mathematical constructs), and, what is less obvious, the
primary for red is practically invisible because of lacking
power at 700nm. 255,0,0 in pRGB should be black, but it isn't
in PhS.
That's what I meant by 'disaster'. So we have an RGB space
where we cannot choose for only one channel 255 (or the largest
value for 16 bpc). More precisely: in PhS CS2 we can choose
such a value but there is no warning.
Plenty colors inside the human gamut (which is not indicated
in PhS) are out-of-numberspace in Lab, where a*,b* are confined
between -128 and +127.
In oRGB this happens as well, but only for a smaller percentage
of possible colors.
The doc shows on the following pages the truly exaggerated range
of pRGB in Lab.

This somewhat strange color space has its roots in the RIMM/ROMM
concept by Kodak, as found here:
Ph.Green+Lindsay MacDonal Ed.
Colour Engineering
Chapter 14
K.Spaulding+E.Giorgianni
Implementation of device-independent color at Kodak

RIMM is scene-referred, ROMM is device-referred.
RIMM can be considered as an RGB space between camera RAW
and the ICC Profile Connection Space (PCS). Concerning the
primaries and some other features it's the same as pRGB.

The authors are talking about nonlinear manipulations for R'G'B'
(gamma encoded) simultaneously to all channels, but without
specifying these manipulations. We can imagine for instance a
contrast improvement by an S-like Curve.
Everybody knows, that this can cause strong color shifts,
depending on the strength of the manipulation.
RIMM/ROMM was optimized for minimal hue variations (as defined
as deviations from straight lines in an a*,b* projection).
The authors are comparing their good result with the bad result
for some other nameless wide gamut space.

Now, for what is it good - useful strategies ten years ago ?
For nothing, because nowadays and in future manipulations of
this type are done professionally in Lab.

Surprisingly, the oversize of pRGB, as defined by the gamut
triangle in xy, or by a volume in Lab, was not chosen so large
because of the necessary gamut size but because of the hue
robustness against 'luminosity' changes.

Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Dec 03, 2008 Dec 03, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

You seem to be assuming that, upon conversion to ProPhoto RGB, and/or subsequent to an image edit, certain colors in the image will drift into the "imaginary" region of ProPhoto RGB and be forever lost, with dire consequences -- or "disastrous", or "ugly".

In my years as an imaging professional using fully color-managed late-binding workflows I have detected no ProPhoto RGB "misbehavior" that was so glaring that I or others noticed it.

Seems to me that your argument is informed more by Dan Margulis' own prejudices against wide-gamut RGB color spaces than by arguments whose validity I can recognize based on my own experience. I suggest that you take his "advice" with a generous grain of salt.

>RIMM can be considered as an RGB space between camera RAW and the ICC Profile Connection Space

You can say that RIMM is the intermediator between the input scene's Raw data and the ROMM/ProPhoto RGB space that one can use for output, storage and manipulation -- but it should not be implied that Raw itself is a color space.

A color space has primaries and tonal curves. Camera Raw is simply a mathematical construct for input that needs to be translated into colors usable for output. It has no defined primaries or tonal curves.

>The authors are comparing their good result with the bad result for some other nameless wide gamut space.
>Now, for what is it good - useful strategies ten years ago ? For nothing, because nowadays and in future manipulations of this type are done professionally in Lab.

That is, by Mr. Margulis and those who get lost along with him in his "canyons". Not by me or other professionals that I share knowledge with. You wish to sound as if your advice is based on widespread practice, but it's actually free advertising for someone who I have to admit is a sharp self-marketer who, on his way to dubious fame, also manages to dupe intelligent people.

>Surprisingly, the oversize of pRGB, as defined by the gamut triangle in xy, or by a volume in Lab, was not chosen so large because of the necessary gamut size but because of the hue robustness against 'luminosity' changes.

Not true. The gamut size was very much a core consideration in creating RIMM/ROMM, not secondary to what you call "hue robustness". It was a matter of finding the best compromise, among other factors, between quantization due to "out-of-locus" primaries, efficient encoding, gamut large enough to encompass real-world surface colors and suitability for storage and color/tonal manipulation.

To quote:

>ROMM RGB was designed to provide a large enough color gamut to encompass most common output devices, while simultaneously satisfying a number of other important criteria
i [described on page 2 of the PDF document cited below].
>[...] Increasing the gamut can only be achieved by trading off against correspondingly larger quantization errors. If the primaries are chosen to include the maximum possible chromaticity gamut (i.e., the entire area within the spectrum locus), a significant fraction of the color space would correspond to imaginary colors located outside that region. Therefore, in any encoding using such a color space, there would be wasted code values that would never be used in practice. This would lead to larger quantization errors in the usable part of the color space than would be obtained with different primaries defining a smaller chromaticity gamut.
b It is therefore desirable to choose primaries with a gamut that is big enough but not too big.
>[...] he primaries selected for RIMM/ROMM RGB [...] encompass the gamut of real world surface colors,
b without devoting a lot of space to non-realizable colors outside the spectrum locus.

>"Reference Input/Output Medium Metric RGB Color Encodings (RIMM/ROMM RGB)"

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
May 23, 2009 May 23, 2009

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Gernot Hoffmann wrote:

Actually, I would like to replace 'a disaster' by 'ugly':

Let's have a look at the graphic on p.3 in this doc:
http://www.fho-emden.de/~hoffmann/gamcomp18062006.pdf

It shows the chromaticity diagram with gamut triangles for
sRGB, aRGB=Adobe RGB, pRGB=ProPhoto RGB and my private
color space oRGB=OptiRGB.

Gernot, I have searched on the Internet for references to OptiRGB and didn't find anything. Could you post its specifications as shown in the table here ? http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?BetaRGB.html

I'd be particularly interested in Lab gammut efficiency and coding effeciency as defined there. In your opinion, how does optiRGB compare to the other optimized colour spaces there ?

Gernot Hoffmann wrote:

Plenty colors inside the human gamut (which is not indicated
in PhS) are out-of-numberspace in Lab, where a*,b* are confined
between -128 and +127.

Hm, I always thought the opposite would be true (also suggested by the wikipedia page if I understand correctly):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab_color_space

[...] many of the “colors” within Lab space fall outside the gamut of human vision, and are therefore purely imaginary;

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Dec 01, 2008 Dec 01, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Gernot Hoffmann

It's bossible to obtain this profille (oRGB)?

thank

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guide ,
Dec 01, 2008 Dec 01, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Well, I've carefully read Prof. Hoffmann's post and his PDF.

While his description of the ProPhoto RGB space seems beyond reproach, and I have no quarrel with any of it, I still see nothing in there to explain why, in actual practice, those of us who have been advised by diverse authors to work in ProPhoto RGB, and have actually done so for years for all our digital photography work, carefully remaining in a 16-bit workflow and ever mindful of the constraints of inkjet and continuous-tone printers, should change our workflow now.

My current ProPhoto RGB workflow certainly beats the results I (used to) get from my old Adobe RGB workflow, let alone the sRGB workflow required by non-pro local labs.

Now, with 16-bit printing in Photoshop 11 ("CS4") on the Macintosh platform, I feel even more confident and am getting improved results. I'm impressed that Adobe gave us this advanced feature, which more than compensates for the lack of 64-bit functionality.

It's good to see disaster downgraded to mere ugliness now, :), and I would welcome any corrections to my way of thinking here.

There must be something I'm missing here, doubtlessly due to my own personal limitations.

Any further input will be most welcome.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Dec 01, 2008 Dec 01, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Kokii,

the profile is here:
http://www.fho-emden.de/~hoffmann/OptiRGB.icc

As already explained - an exercise. Personally,
I'm doing everything either in sRGB (simple appli-
cations) or AdobeRGB (high quality).
Furtheron, it's always possible to improve images
in Lab and CMYK.
Following Dan Margulis, Professional Photoshop,
optimal offset printing results are achieved by
final editing in CMYK.

Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Dec 02, 2008 Dec 02, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Aaah, yes...Margulis -- the king of 700-step arcane workflows; sworn enemy of ICC color management, high-bit workflows, wide-gamut color spaces and Raw rendering too, just to cap it all off nicely with a bow. A true trailblazer...back to the stone age!

Let's just say that his "optimal" is not exactly *my* optimal. Hopefully, he'll just retire soon and thus charitably spare us any more of his bright insights, inside some "canyon" or elsewhere.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
May 23, 2009 May 23, 2009

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Gernot Hoffmann wrote:

Personally,
I'm doing everything either in sRGB (simple appli-
cations) or AdobeRGB (high quality).

For which reasons don't you use optiRGB then?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines