ViewSonic display with %100 sRGB

I recently purchased a 24" ViewSonic display dedicated to photo editing, with 100% sRGB. I also got an Acer laptop with a quadcore processor, and a max screen resolution of 1920 x 1080, and Intel UHD Graphics 620 graphics card. My concern is whether the lap top's PGU is sufficient to enable maximum usage of the ViewSonic display's capacity. Below are links to these two machines. I would greatly appreciate your insights. Thanks!

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01HSABSGE/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07RF2123Z/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1

I use the 2468 and am quite happy with it. It's sRGB and no more. It would be nice to have an extended range monitor, but the 2468 gives a lot of bang for the buck. I'd think for photo editing most any modern graphics system would work fine, including that Intel one. Everybody today is interested in gaming performance and that's not what we need. I actually use a graphics card intended for CAD work, but it does better than fine for photos and video.

Conrad, thank you! Pardon my ignorance, but what is CAD?

Also, what do you mean by extended range?

CAD stands for computer aided design, the thing that has replaced the drafting board and pencils for design work. That would include programs like Autocad and Solidworks. By extended range I meant wide-gamut.

Also, what do you mean by extended range?

 

By extended range I meant wide-gamut.

 

Just fyi, the "color gamut" loosely means the entire range of colors that the monitor can make, up to their maximum "strength." sRGB is based on the three colors - red, green, and blue - that were commonly used in color television sets of the 1990s or thereabouts.

 

Since everything was made up from a mix of those three colors, it is not possible for sRGB to have any colors "stronger," or more saturated, than those three colors. Today, many monitors CAN show stronger colors than sRGB - they would be considered as "extended range" or "wide gamut."

BTW, just wanted to add that the Viewsonic documentation is pretty sparse. I can usually get things set up quickly, but it took me a couple tries with the Viewsonic before I had everything plugged into the correct spot and actually saw an image, plus having the extra USB sockets working correctly.

Conrad and Bill C., thank you very much for kindly sharing your knowledge! It is truly and greatly appreciate it.

Just fyi, the "color gamut" loosely means the entire range of colors that the monitor can make, up to their maximum "strength." sRGB is based on the three colors - red, green, and blue - that were commonly used in color television sets of the 1990s or thereabouts.

 

Since everything was made up from a mix of those three colors, it is not possible for sRGB to have any colors "stronger," or more saturated, than those three colors. Today, many monitors CAN show stronger colors than sRGB - they would be considered as "extended range" or "wide gamut."

 

Not quite. Adobe 1998 RGB is also based on the 3 primary colors, but it has a broader gamut. Working Space Comparison: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB 1998

Not quite. Adobe 1998 RGB is also based on the 3 primary colors, but it has a broader gamut. Working Space Comparison: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB 1998

ALL RGB working spaces (RGB color spaces too) are based on three primaries: Red, Green and Blue. Some of the primaries (Green specifically) in Adobe RGB (1998) are wider than those in sRGB. ProPhoto even wider (in fact, two are not even colors; we can't see them and this is an interesting attribute of synthetically constructed color spaces as all RGB working space are). All outlined here:

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf

Color gamut defines the range of colors, not the number of colors. Colors should be, by definition, defined as something we humans can see.

Color Numbers may not be colors!

http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersColorGamut.pdf

That web site isn't an ideal place to study color management for a number of reasons IMHO:

 

I wonder how many people reading that link realize the image they incorrectly tout as the "Profile Connection Space" is actually the human gamut CIEuv chromaticity graph? Might as well have a cat picture.

What exactly does 'Simulate paper white' do?

 

The article is mistaken by stating: Adobe RGB 1998 was designed (by Adobe Systems, Inc.)

No, it was a big mistake they made way back in Photoshop 5.0 when that space was originality SMPTE-240M, Adobe got the primaries wrong, then had to rename it because, well it wasn't that color space. :eek:

Edited July 19, 2019 by digitaldog

CambridgeinColour also gets this totally wrong, confusing bits, color gamut and (more) color:

 

Since the Adobe RGB 1998 working space clearly provides more colors to work with...

Best ignore this site at least in terms of color management.

Not quite. Adobe 1998 RGB is also based on the 3 primary colors, but it has a broader gamut. Working Space Comparison: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB 1998

 

Bob, if you look up one of the original papers on sRGB (Michael Stokes as one of the authors) you'll see where the sRGB primaries came from. (It was a video spec often called Rec. 709, as I recall.)

 

As Andrew says, the AdobeRGB(1998) green primary is a little "wider," loosely meaning a little stronger (the R and B are, as I recall, identical to those in sRGB). This green primary is responsible for the larger color gamut of AdobeRGB(1998).

 

Btw, you referred to "the 3 primary colors," suggesting that it is cut and dried what those are. This works, calling them red, green, and blue, only as long as one doesn't look too closely. Once you do, it turns out that there is no hard technical definition for exactly what these "colors" are. So there can be a wide range of reds, etc., and it is necessary to specify more exactly when trying to do more precise work with them.

 

As a note, the sRGB primaries are what they call "physically realisable," meaning that it is possible to actually make such a source (and I think same with Adobe RGB(1998)). Using only three such primaries significantly limits the maximum color gamut, thus the invention of "imaginary primaries," such as used in ProPhoto RGB, etc. These are useful mathematically, but it is not physically possible to actually make them - it would be necessary for the source to have some negative response, essentially sucking up light instead of emitting it. For those who are/were fans of the physicist Richard Feynman, he discussed the situation of primaries in the "Feynman Lectures on Physics", lecture 35, "Color Vision" (circa 1963). I think this is perhaps the most straightforward, easy to follow explanation I've ever seen (at least for the way my brain works). The lectures, I believe, are now available online for free.

 

Note, see section 35.3, at. The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. I Ch. 35: Color Vision

When sRGB comes up, the next question should be, which sRGB? :D

sRGB profile comparison

At least, according to the ICC, what sRGB is:

http://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/srgb.xalter

sRGB is a derivative of Rec 709

Bill,

 

Thanks for posting the link to the Feynman lecture.

 

Dan

ALL RGB working spaces (RGB color spaces too) are based on three primaries: Red, Green and Blue. Some of the primaries (Green specifically) in Adobe RGB (1998) are wider than those in sRGB. ProPhoto even wider (in fact, two are not even colors; we can't see them and this is an interesting attribute of synthetically constructed color spaces as all RGB working space are). All outlined here:

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf

Color gamut defines the range of colors, not the number of colors. Colors should be, by definition, defined as something we humans can see.

Color Numbers may not be colors!

http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersColorGamut.pdf

That web site isn't an ideal place to study color management for a number of reasons IMHO:

 

I wonder how many people reading that link realize the image they incorrectly tout as the "Profile Connection Space" is actually the human gamut CIEuv chromaticity graph? Might as well have a cat picture.

What exactly does 'Simulate paper white' do?

 

The article is mistaken by stating: Adobe RGB 1998 was designed (by Adobe Systems, Inc.)

No, it was a big mistake they made way back in Photoshop 5.0 when that space was originality SMPTE-240M, Adobe got the primaries wrong, then had to rename it because, well it wasn't that color space. :eek:

 

Wider primary colors? Sorry, but that's sloppy language, at best. Color spaces are wide. Primary colors are not, even if they are imaginary. Your sloppiness does draw your grasp of the subject into question.

Wider primary colors?

Yes! Same number of colors. Wider range of colors; not the same. Not sloppy, a misunderstanding of some as outlined.

Color spaces are wide.

That's a bit like saying 'cars are big'; utterly ambiguous. Some color spaces are wider gamut than others. The gamut of all color spaces are based on the position of the COLOR primaries within the spectrum locus, and the positions outside, a rarity in color spaces, are not colors.

Your sloppiness does draw your grasp of the subject into question.

More like your misunderstandings of the subject:

Adobe 1998 RGB is also based on the 3 primary colors, but it has a broader gamut.

Again, ALL color spaces are based on their primaries. Some color spaces are wider gamut than others. Ever hear of a 'wide gamut display"? Use the Google machine. I've never heard of a "broader gamut display" however. :eek:

Perhaps English isn't your primary language?

"Broad" and "wide" are synonyms.

 

"color spaces are wide" is a common form, equivalent to "'wide' characterizes color spaces" [as opposed to colors].I didn't have any difficulty understanding the meaning of the phrase.

 

"wider primary colors" seems incorrect to me. A primary color is a specific point in a color space, right? Points don't have width.

Look at my Adobe white paper figures showing the green primaries between sRGB vs. Adobe RGB (1998); wider apart.

I recently purchased a 24" ViewSonic display dedicated to photo editing, with 100% sRGB. I also got an Acer laptop with a quadcore processor, and a max screen resolution of 1920 x 1080, and Intel UHD Graphics 620 graphics card. My concern is whether the lap top's PGU is sufficient to enable maximum usage of the ViewSonic display's capacity. Below are links to these two machines. I would greatly appreciate your insights. Thanks!

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01HSABSGE/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07RF2123Z/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1

 

Both the Display and the Laptop both cover sRGB well enough. However I don't think the graphics card will support the high bit depth graphics especially for applications such as Adobe Photoshop.

 

The 4 trillion colors on the display is a bit misleading. Assuming that the 14 bit LUT supports a high bit into the display electronics (not truncated) you would still need a high bit depth from the application, OS, and your laptop graphics card. Typically the best available is 30 bit depth (10bits per channel) which is pretty good at reducing issues of banding on displays that support the high bit depth.

 

All the above also assumes that you have done calibration and profiling that properly sets up any LUT in graphics card or in your display.

 

No doubt someone else on the forum could be more definitive on this topic relative to your ACER laptop capabilities, yet I am skeptical it covers that bit depth for programs such as with Adobe Photoshop.

 

Hope you find this useful or at least spurs you to investigate further.

John Wheeler

Look at my Adobe white paper figures showing the green primaries between sRGB vs. Adobe RGB (1998); wider apart.

 

Yes, farther apart. But the colors are not wider. Points have no width.

Yes, farther apart. But the colors are not wider. Points have no width.

Semantics: there's a distance between the points; one is wider distance than the other. The position of the two green primaries are wider apart and this is clearly seen on the 2D gamut maps.

Wider and farther work equally well IMHO, but if we want to nitpick, use either term you desire. :D

The 4 trillion colors on the display is a bit misleading.

Massively so. Even 16.4 million device values (not colors) is misleading if we agree upon what color is and I agree with these experts:

 

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.

Doug Keer:

All colors of visible light have chromaticities represented by points inside the region bounded by the horseshoe (and the locus of nonspectral purples) are visible. Since chromaticity is an aspect of color, and color is defined in terms of human perception, radiation that is not visible does not have a color, nor a chromaticity. Thus, strictly speaking, points outside the horseshoe do not represent chromaticities.

 

We can't see 16.7 million colors. Further, that number has really nothing to do with color and is based on the math used for encoding a number. Numbers don't equate to color. We should not confuse a color number, a device value, as a color we can see!

A visual example: Different numbers, same color:

 

http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersNotColors.jpg

Edited July 20, 2019 by digitaldog

The difference between color values and perceived colors is a very important point that I suspect few people are aware of. The Feynman lecture referenced by Bill makes the same point in a somewhat different manner. If I understand this correctly: the gamut of an 8-bit sRGB JPEG includes differences in color values that we cannot perceive, but it also excludes differences that we can perceive. Correct?

If I understand this correctly: the gamut of an 8-bit sRGB JPEG includes differences in color values that we cannot perceive, but it also excludes differences that we can perceive. Correct?

Shown above yes. And not just sRGB and not having much to do with gamut or bit depth or the format being JPEG.

One can find far, far more sets of color numbers in high bit that behave just as shown above: RGB 1/255/240 and 2/255/240 IN 8-bit ARE the same color. The deltaE is a mere 0.01.