Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HP Introduces First-Ever 30-bit, 1 Billion Color Display

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the so-many-little-dots dept.

Displays 236

justechn writes "I recently had the opportunity to see, first hand, HP's new 30-bit, 1 billion color LCD display. I have to say I am impressed. Not only is the HP Dreamcolor LP2480zx capable of displaying so much more than standard LCDs, but it considered a Color Critical display. This means if you work with videos or photos you can be guaranteed that what you see is what it is supposed to look like. With 6 built-in color spaces (NTSC, SMPTE, sRGB, Rec. 709, Adobe RGB and DCI), you can easily switch to the one that best suits your applications and process. At $3,499, it is too expensive to be a consumer level LCD, but compared to other Color Critical displays (which can cost as much as $15,000 and $25,000) this is a real bargain. This display was a joint venture between HP and DreamWorks animation. When I talked to the executives of DreamWorks, they were very excited about this display because it solved a huge problem for them."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GIMMEH (5, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725719)

I WANT IT. I don't really know why, though...

Re:GIMMEH (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23726191)

That's exactly what yo mama said about mah PENIS.

Re:GIMMEH (-1, Offtopic)

pmbasehore (1198857) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727457)

Could someone explain to me why this was modded "Troll"?

I want one too.

Link? (1)

jockeys (753885) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725759)

anyone have a link that DOESN'T require a login?

I for one.... (0, Redundant)

sdpuppy (898535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725761)

I for one welcome our new 30-bit, 1 Billion color monitor overlords from the 6 built-in color spaces...

Oh God, I don't know why I had to say that, there goes my Karma...

Re:I for one.... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23725849)

Way to be a rebel there dude. Glad we have you leading the revolution. It takes a real man to go out on a limb like that.

Re:I for one.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23725893)

because you're an uncreative nerd who has such low social skills that commenting on news stories amounts to canned cliche responses?

Re:I for one.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23726631)

Sheesh. What a bunch of lifeless fucks.

Re:I for one.... (5, Funny)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726473)

And I, as a man, fear anything and anyone that can handle more than the 16 colors I can differentiate and all the marital skirmished derived from that fact.

Re:I for one.... (2, Funny)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726505)

On an unrelated note, I also fear spellcheckers....

Re:I for one.... (0)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727483)

You forgot the proverbial "Imagine a beowulf cluster of 30-bit, 1 billion color displays".

Here's a proper link (5, Informative)

The Bender (801382) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725763)

Re:Here's a proper link (4, Interesting)

dkf (304284) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726633)

Does it use the same number of pixels per channel? I hope not. Here's why: the human eye is not equally sensitive to each of the three primary colors; we can see quite a lot finer differences in green than in blue (red comes between the two extremes). To show this, create a simple monochromatic stepped gradient image in green and another in blue. Now eyeball them using a viewer that doesn't do fancy gamma correction; on a 24bpp display you should be able to see the steps on the green image (assuming normal color vision) but you'll have real problems doing that with the blue image.

Meh (5, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725833)

I looked at the pictures.

It doesn't look like anything special to me. I guess I don't need to upgrade my current monitor.

Re:Meh (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725937)

Yeah. I couldn't see any extra colors. Go figure.

Re:Meh (0, Redundant)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725947)

If you look at the pictures on your current monitor, it's impossible for you to tell the difference.

Re:Meh (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23726001)

WHOOSH!

Re:Meh (1, Offtopic)

MarcoG42 (1087205) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726031)

*WOOOOOOOOOSH*

Re:Meh (5, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726213)

If you look at the pictures on your current monitor, it's impossible for you to tell the difference.
This is patently untrue. I have a HD tv in my living room, but an old-fashioned black and white tv in my bedroom. I didn't want to spring for a new tv in the bedroom, so I set up my video camera in front of the HD tv and hooked it up to the b&w bedroom tv. The result? Stunning full-color 1080p picture.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23726137)

Upgrade. Minesweeper will never look the same again.

Good as CRTs? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726849)

I want a LCD, SED, or whatever that has rich colors like old fashion CRTs. None of the affordable LCDs do that right now. :(

Re:Meh (1)

rcamans (252182) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726895)

whiners? wieners?

Registration (5, Insightful)

jefu (53450) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725885)

It might be better to avoid stories from people (justechn, roland p, etc) that just link to their websites. Especially those that require registration.

Slashdot should not be giving these guys (and their like) the free publicity that they figure they deserve.

Re:Registration (3, Insightful)

cblack (4342) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725953)

Not to mention that the justechn link for one is already down/suspended for bandwidth cap with only a handful of comments posted.

Re:Registration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23726371)

Click the hell outta the links and maybe they'll get a nice bill this month.

Re:Registration (5, Informative)

justechn (821584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726427)

The website does not require registration. It just defaults to that page when it is overloaded. I apologize about my website going down. It looks like I got slashdotted. I am working on it.

Re:Registration (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23726793)

Douche.

Re:Registration (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23727079)

I think you're missing the point. Linking to yourself presents a bit of a conflict of interest.

Dithering (3, Insightful)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725917)

Did they determine those specs using the same calculations Mac used. [macworld.com]

Re:Dithering (1, Insightful)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726931)

That whole issue is asinine. When you get right down to it, every display in the world can only display three colors, which are dithered together to create the illusion of full color. Some displays also dither together multiple groups of triads in order to create a broader range of colors.

While you can certainly complain that some monitors have more visible dithering than others, only an idiot would maintain that some monitors dither and others don't. I'd love for somebody to show me a monitor which can produce a true yellow, instead of faking it with small red and green dots.

Re:Dithering (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727025)

When you get right down to it, every display in the world can only display three colors, which are dithered together to create the illusion of full color.
Agreed. If a picture of a banana is on the monitor and you view it through a perfect yellow filter, you can't see the banana.

Just a bit of overkill (3, Informative)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725935)

Don't have time to find all of the references but most of the human race cannot distinguish that many colors, except possible the few who have the extra color rod in their eyes. Most of us cannot see more than about 1 million colors, I believe.

Cool technology, though.

Re:Just a bit of overkill (1)

Helen Keller (842669) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725981)

cantGNNMEHany!

Re:Just a bit of overkill (4, Interesting)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726187)

I don't particularly want 1 billion colors, I actually just want 1 new one: black.

Not a very slightly gray-black, but silver-print-face-of-the-half-dome black.

Re:Just a bit of overkill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23726227)

Didn't have the time to finish reading your post or think about it but I believe you are wrong

Re:Just a bit of overkill (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726247)

Especially considering that most people buying these will be big tech geeks. Which are mostly men. Most men don't have very good abilities at differentiating a lot of different colours. But who's to say you have to have people using them. Who knows though. They could get a considerable market share of the mantis shrimp [softpedia.com] population.

Re:Just a bit of overkill (5, Informative)

jcupitt65 (68879) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726421)

That's not quite right.

CIELAB colour space codes colours as L (lightness) with a 0 - 100 range, and a/b (red-green / yellow-blue) each with about a +/- 100 range for physically realizeable colours. A pair of colours which are just distinguishable are a unit apart, so we can distinguish very roughly 100 * 100 * 100 colours, or a million.

However those are surface reflectances under a single illuminant. In a natural scene, your eye is adapting constantly as you look around. Your iris changes size, your retina changes sensitivity, and so on. The range of lightnesses in a natural scene is up to about 10 billion to 1 if you compare direct sunlight to deep shadow. You can distinguish a million colours at each of these points of adaptation.

If you want a display that can show a full range of dark colours and a full range of light colours, you need more than a million to 1.

Re:Just a bit of overkill (2, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727029)

The range of lightnesses in a natural scene is up to about 10 billion to 1 if you compare direct sunlight to deep shadow. You can distinguish a million colours at each of these points of adaptation.
While true, this overlooks the fact that there will be an absolutely HUGE number of hues at one level of illumination that do not produce different optical characteristics from different hues at different levels of illumination. This sort of thing _drastically_ reduces the color space required for a full set of representable colors. 8 bits per color isn't actually sufficient to represent every possible human perceivable shade because the human eye has different levels of sensitivity to different colors, even though it does represent more colors in total than the eye can discern. If one is to use the same number of bits for each color, however, I had heard somewhere that about 10 bits per primary color would be sufficient to represent every shade distinguishable by any normal human eye (ie, one that does not have an extra color cone).

Re:Just a bit of overkill (1)

jcupitt65 (68879) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727383)

Oh sure, I'm just saying that you need more than a million for high dynamic range media (ie. media with a bigger range than you get from reflective materials).

Re:Just a bit of overkill (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727337)

Coming up next: nuclear-powered displays, for when those pesky LEDs just aren't bright enough....

Re:Just a bit of overkill (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726465)

If the display only generated the specific million colors that you can distinguish, you'd be right, but there's nothing like a 1:1 match between the RGB color map and what you can see.

Re:Just a bit of overkill (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726701)

It's different for each of the three primary additive colors (RGB). I think green tends to be the most sensitive, and red the least (the rough equivalent of 12-bit green, 8-bit red sensitivity, IIRC, with blue somewhere in the middle). However, for work where color accuracy is key such as photography and video work (especially with the 14-bit-per-channel sensors in many DSLRs today), you definitely want your eyes rather than your monitor to be the limiting factor. As a photographer I'd consider paying a premium for one of these displays over a standard 8-bit unit provided the rest of the system is able to support it, though not THIS much of a premium.

Re:Just a bit of overkill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23727481)

Actually, blue is by far the least sensitive of the human eye receptors. I heard somewhere that it has roughly 1/10 the sensitivity of the other colors.

To prove this to yourself, take a screenshot of your computer and use the gimp or photoshop to eliminate all but the green channel. Really clear, isn't it?

Now try just the red channel. It should still be legible, but somewhat more difficult than the green.

Now try blue. It should be significantly more difficult to decipher.

Re:Just a bit of overkill (1)

Jor-Al (1298017) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726847)

Did you miss the part where this monitor is mostly for professionals dealing with color sensitive work? This isn't a monitor made for Joe Blow using Microsoft Office.

Re:Just a bit of overkill (1)

famebait (450028) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726911)

Most of us cannot see more than about 1 million colors,

Bollocks. It all depends on the contrast and mapping curve.

1mill combos from 3 channels is only 100 levels per channel, i.e.
around 7 bit per channel.

Sure, on a cheap monitor where the difference between how much light the lightest and the darkest pixel send toward your eye is not really that big, you don't need many steps in between either, since they will be very close together.

But even then you will see clear banding in a smooth sweep with 1-bit intervals.

If you look at something like real life, we can handle enormous dynamic range. Some of it is illusion because we adjust the aperture and possibly other parameters to suit what we are focusing on, but even in a frozen gaze you can see dust on your speedometer and subtle shading on the sunny road outside at the same time. Try quantizing that sort of range into 24 bit, and it would look silly.

But we don't need to get that hypothetical. There are media that we can control digitally
and that posses very high contrast (low compared to reality, but huge compared to a normal monitor): Print. Use a top-of-the line color printer and print out sheets with either half filled with 'adjacent' colors in your chosen color model. You'll need a _lot_ more than 24 bits before it becomes even remotely difficult for a person with good eyesight to see the split.

 

Re:Just a bit of overkill (-1, Redundant)

azav (469988) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727205)

Yes, but the human eye is not linear in its response to color. We may not be able to see more than a million colors but the colors we are sensitive to are not all available in current displays.

Re:Just a bit of overkill (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727353)

I don't think more colors steps are necessary, except to make a broader gamut. 10 bit color means 1024 steps from white to black rather than just 256. Banding in brightness can be very apparent.

Re:Just a bit of overkill (2, Funny)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727471)

My eyes... the monitors... ze do nothing...

Oh, really? (4, Informative)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 6 years ago | (#23725997)

An LED-backlit 24-inch widescreen monitor, the DreamColor features 30-bit imaging with a over billion colors. That's 64 times the standard LCD color gamut
No it isn't. Gamut is something like how far apart the most different colors it can show are, and depends on what colors the actual pixel elements are. The number of bits just determines how close together the most similar colors it can show are.

Re:Oh, really? (1)

eggnoglatte (1047660) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726449)

Yeah, but with this display they get both more contrast AND a better coverage of the XYZ horseshoe diagram (i.e. more saturated primaries). So they actually do increase the gamut, not just the bit depth. But you are right, the factor 64 was obviously computed using just bit depth.

Hype (3, Interesting)

mathimus1863 (1120437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726035)

This is really just hype more than anything. Remember that article about like 50% of people with HDTVs think they are viewing in HD but it turns out they're not (b/c of having wrong cables, etc)? It's the same with colors--the eyes just can't distinguish between a display with 10 million colors and a billion colors. Personally I think you're wasting your money buying this thing. But at the very least, maybe the price of "inferior" monitors will go down if this goes mainstream, so I shouldn't complain.

Re:Hype (2, Insightful)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726251)

It's not the 1B colors that matter, but the gamut. Do you agree there are colors that most monitors can't show but do exist in real life? Think of neon greens, bright magentas, etc. This monitor, covering the Adobe RGB gamut, displays colors other monitors simply can't. That may not matter to you, but it does to photographers.

Re:Hype (2, Insightful)

wprowe (754923) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726577)

Exactly! People who work in color managed work flows need exact color representation and will want this. We need to know that what we see is what will be in a publication.

I would say the entry price is a bit steep, except that pro photographers will spend twice as much on a camera body alone. They will keep that camera body for less time than they will keep this monitor.

Re:Hype (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726413)

I find that that study is quite surprising. SDTV on an HDTV looks worse than SDTV on an SDTV. Either these people are delusional, or they need their eyes checked. I don't doubt the study, it's probably quite indicative of what people actually think. But it's amazing how little people know about a TV that they spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on.

Re:Hype (3, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726845)

True. But stick most people watching American Idol in front of a 52" screen and they'll be too enthralled by the size and brightness to notice the image/video quality. If they're willing to put up with that kind of programming, you can't expect them to be overly picky about AV quality. It's not called the idiot box for nothing, even if it would be more aptly named the idiot panel these days.

Remember - "bigger is better" for most people. I can hardly watch typical HDTV due to how hard they stomp on the video for compression, as the macro blocking is too distracting to me (web content tends to be better, as most web producers actually CARE about that kind of thing). At least SDTV tends to be too soft of a picture to have bad macro blocking, and they don't need to compress it has hard in the first place to send it down the tubes.

Re:Hype (4, Interesting)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727263)

I bought a 50" plasma some years ago, and was showing a few of my friends SDTV channels versus HDTV channels. Now, this was a very high-end plasma, properly calibrated, showing some of the prettiest content on Discovery HD, so we are talking a KICK YOU IN THE FACE improvement that anybody with half a brain should have been able to appreciate.

One was suitably impressed. The second said that she could kind of see a difference, but didn't really care. The third said she couldn't even tell.

I suspect these are the same people that buy a nice 24" LCD and then run it in 800x600 resolution. Sadly, I have seen this. After fixing it, I have then seen these same people maintain that aside from the aspect ratio change, they couldn't tell the difference.

Evidently a lot of people desperately need glasses and have absolutely no idea how bad their vision is. The weird part is that even when this is pointed out to them -- "Wait, you seriously can't tell the difference between 800x600 and 1920x1200? Please, for the love of Zeus get your eyes checked!" -- they generally act completely nonplussed and never bother to see an optometrist. I just don't get it. Why do so many people not care about having sharp eyesight?

Re:Hype (1)

XeresRazor (142207) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726477)

Difference being once you've seen an actual HD signal from a reasonable viewing distance you can generalyl pick out a non-HD source pretty quickly from then on. Even my wife, who has to wear her glasses to watch anything with subtitles, can spot the difference when we watch Heroes in SD or HD.

Re:Hype (5, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726565)

It's the same with colors--the eyes just can't distinguish between a display with 10 million colors and a billion colors. Personally I think you're wasting your money buying this thing. But at the very least, maybe the price of "inferior" monitors will go down if this goes mainstream, so I shouldn't complain.
I'm amazed at how uninformed you and most of the posters seem to be. You can prove that the eye can distinguish, VERY EASILY, between 16.7 million and 1 billion colors, and you can do it right now.

1) Open photoshop.

2) Make a gradient from 0-0-0 RGB to 255-0-0 RGB. This covers every possible variation of the red channel in a 16.7 million color space. Draw the gradient across your whole screen.

3) Look at the color banding and say, "Oh, I guess I can see why 30 bit color would be noticeable."

Cool - This means cheaper *real* displays! (1, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726067)

HP's new 30-bit, 1 billion color LCD display.

Or, put another way, yet another display that can show about 999 million more colors than most people can tell apart (or in my case, 999,999,000, aka "six-nines of wasted color").


With 6 built-in color spaces [...snip...] you can easily switch to the one that best suits your applications and process.

Translation - Users will always pick the wrong one, "guaranteeing" that they never see the right thing.

Re:Cool - This means cheaper *real* displays! (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726969)

Users spending thirty five hundred dollars on a computer monitor will know what to use. Excepting the obnoxious rich guys, the target audience of this is primarily advertising businesses and high-end video/photography where color space and bit depth is actually important.

"considered color critical"? (2, Interesting)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726083)

Is "considered color critical" anything other than meaningless hype? Is there a graphics card that can feed it with more than 24bits of color information, and any software that works with that combination? More importantly, what's the resolution of the display, how black is it's black, and is it's colour gamut any larger than a normal monitor?

I'd need a lot more information before I consider this to be a competitor to the SWOP certified 2560x1600 pixel screen I'm using now.

Re:"considered color critical"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23726271)

"watching porn" is "considered color critical" , yes you need to buy a new one.

Re:"considered color critical"? (2, Informative)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726431)

The monitor is designed to be color calibrated with color printers and scanners.

We had some art friends who used a system like this. One time, they discovered there was a market for their paintings as prints rather than as originals, so they decided to set up their own print shop.

However, the problem was making sure the scanned input matched what was on the screen and what was printed out. So they bought a system calibrator which had a photosensor that attached to the screen. You basically scanned in a pre-supplied test image, placed the photosensor on the screen and then onto the printed output. Each time the system would readjust the gamma correction for each color channel of every device until they all matched.

This was in accordance with the Pantone Matching System [wikipedia.org]

For a company like Dreamworks, they will want to be able to visualize 3D characters as designed by the artists and be able to use this information to create merchandise like wall posters, bean bag toys, plastic models and accessories.

Re:"considered color critical"? (1)

aibrahim (59031) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726593)

A lot of those color spaces are for video and film post production applications.

There are plenty of devices that output that data type, including HDMI 1.3 and some DVI display cards, but I expect that most of the output devices that people will want to use are going to want to use dual link SDI connectors. Knowing the industry, that is probably an expensive add on option.

Here is the Sony BVM L230 [sony.com] ,type of device it is competing against

Re:"considered color critical"? (1)

aibrahim (59031) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727299)

Just checked the Specs... there appears to be no SDI option, so this is going to limit how some people can use these monitors.

The component inputs can be used in a pinch, but they really just don't cut it for many professional uses (particularly in HD broadcast or film post.)

Of course near this price point the broadcast video market is filled with 24 bit 4:2:2 color displays, like the Sony LMD-2450 [abelcine.com] . (The 2450WHD model shown in the sidebar includes the SDI i/o option board.)

This is probably most useful for 3D artists and digital compositors (You know the people Dreamworks has plenty of), as opposed to editors and color correction folks. Those people need to see things in the right color spaces- but they don't deal directly with output, so the images can be adjusted if needed down the line, most likely in finishing or DI.

Re:"considered color critical"? (1)

wprowe (754923) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726681)

Modern professional cameras can capture 14 bits of information. Most monitors display 8 bits or less. We can only see an approximation of what we capture. The more bits of information that can be displayed, the closer we get to seeing the actual camera data.

Of course, most print today is still in CMYK color space, which is a much smaller gamut than the information we can capture with cameras.

Re:"considered color critical"? (1)

eggnoglatte (1047660) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726835)

HDSDI supports up to 12 bit per channel, i.e. the equivalent of roughly 36 bit RGB ("roughly" because they use another color space, YPbPr, so you'd loose a bit in the conversion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Digital_Interface [wikipedia.org]

Re:"considered color critical"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23727109)

U loose at the spelings

Come on people! Is it really that difficult? I can forgive the occasional typo, dropped apostrophe, and even it's/its their/there/they're confusion. After all, they sound the same, and for some reason people make these errors when typing but not writing. (Which probably has an interesting explanation in neurology and cognitive psychology.)

Every time I see "Bob is a looser" spray painted on the side of a building, I think of "Life of Brian" and the centurion.

Confused... (4, Insightful)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726099)

They make it sound like out-of-the-box you're going to get the best image possible. But that's not the case. The color profile for the monitor needs to be adjusted to match reality (using something like ColorVision's Spyder2)before you can make that claim. There's no point in having billions of colors if they're all wrong.

Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23726711)

People who might want this monitor are likely to know about color calibration tools (and already possess one or more of them ;)

Re:Confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23727363)

> There's no point in having billions of colors if they're all wrong.

I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.

useless due to source material and dynamic range (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726185)

I recently had the opportunity to see, first hand, HP's new 30-bit, 1 billion color LCD display. I have to say I am impressed.

This doesn't get you much unless the display also has a wide dynamic range- and it doesn't, it's 1000:1, which is pretty average (ratios range from 700:1 to 2000:1 in Dell's lineup, for example.) Ie, keep the same 'color resolution' (which is useless past the eye/brain recognition point) and make the gamut and DR larger.

I especially don't see why the submitter is "impressed", since he/she hasn't seen it in person- only marketing photos (at, ahem, 24 bit color) showing the new display with its brightness cranked up.

Re:useless due to source material and dynamic rang (2, Informative)

justechn (821584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726249)

Actually I did see it in person. I apologize about my website going down. It looks like I got slashdotted.

How useful is this? (0, Redundant)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726199)

I thought the number of colors the average human can see is less than 1 million. Seems pointless to go beyond 24-bit displays.

24-bit RGB equals 8 bit per channel...! (1)

cashdot (954651) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726813)

24-bit RGB comprises 256 shades of grey. It is said, that humans can usually distinguish about 500 grey levels, which is corresponding to 27-bit color depth. It sounds reasonable to me, to round that number up to 10 bits per channel, 30 bit in total.

1 billion colors! (2, Funny)

Lucas123 (935744) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726207)

And here my world has been limited to Crayola's 64-count box. Wow. Who'd have thunk it?

Re:1 billion colors! (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726411)

New colors!

Slightly burnt umber, yellowish-greenlike, yellow ochre with a bit of light brown, sorta blue, rhododendron roseum purple, you know that color you get when you have an old bruise? yah, that color...

Re:1 billion colors! (1)

ch33zm0ng3r (1266976) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726587)

And here my world has been limited to Crayola's 64-count box. Wow. Who'd have thunk it?
64 colors? Surely some of them must be duplicates!

I wanna see! - Oh, wait. (1)

hanshotfirst (851936) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726239)

I tried to look at the stunning images of the new monitor. Besides being slashdotted, I gave up realizing I'd be looking at their stunning display on my MacBook, which only pretends to do millions of colors anyway.

Nothing for me to see here. I'm moving along.

Very interesting, but still a limited market. (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726255)

While this display costs 5 to 10 times less than its current competition, it probably won't attract anyone outside the special niche of professional video editing. Which is, definitely, a large niche, don't get me wrong, but for 99% of people the existing displays which cost 10 times less, provide the same quality and experience.

Before you mod me as "troll" (believe me, I was modded as troll for much less), think about this: would you rather spend $3000 on a display, or $300 on a display of the same resolution and brightness, and the rest on occasional romantic dinners with your GF or wife, for the rest of the year? I know what my choice would be.

Re:Very interesting, but still a limited market. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726351)

I know what my choice would be.

      The display - amirite?

Re:Very interesting, but still a limited market. (1)

dook43 (660162) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727141)

YouknowwhatImean? Andsuch? Winkwink? Nudgenudge?

Re:Very interesting, but still a limited market. (2, Funny)

rilarios (1164755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726615)

.....and the rest on occasional romantic dinners with your GF or wife,....
you spend too much on occasional romantic dinners with your GF or wife.

Just more proof... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23726305)

that pr0n drives all technology.

"Guaranteed" to look like print? (2, Insightful)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726329)

Umm, how?

Print reflects light, montors emit light. You can get close-ish, but that's about it.

All in all, if you still want acurate color, you'll still need to do a print/press check.

Re:"Guaranteed" to look like print? (2, Insightful)

eggnoglatte (1047660) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726603)

Well, first they are talking about movies here, so I'd think "print" means a film print for a theater release in this context.

The problem you have with printing and especially film printing is that the color gamuts of various printing methods are different from and only partially overlapping with the gamuts of regular monitors. That is, the monitor can show colors that the print can't show, and vice versa.

What they did with this displays is build a device that has a very wide gamut, so it can cover the full gamut of the output medium. What that means is that you can now calibrate your display to show exactly the same colors as the print. It is still going to be a bitch to keep the device calibrated, but at least it is possible now.

Support?? (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726345)

That's nice, but what OS / software combo actually supports 30 bit colour displays? (as TFA is already dead...)

Still waiting for Ben Affleck's... (1)

zubikov (1172699) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726393)

3D display from Paycheck to hit the markets.

Response time? (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726443)

Anyone know what the response time on this is? Did they relax the times to get the wider gamut? Color is great but fast response times are what I really want. I could not find any information in the link(s), so it must not be that good or they'd be touting that, too. How can you do video editing with a low response time?

Color Calibration is Not So Simple (5, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726579)

This display might work for reliable color matching, but not for the reasons supplied.

The main problem with getting color on one object, say a display monitor, to look exactly the same as on another object, say a magazine page, is mostly the problem of gamma [wikipedia.org] , a nonlinear contrast range in different light levels. And, of course, the differing illumination of the two objects in different places, which is the actual source of the possible range of colors that can be seen coming from the object.

The human eye is very sensitive to different spectral content of light detected coming from objects. Sunlight starts out with different colors than the light shining on a display monitor or generated by the display. The magazine in the sunlight filters a range of colors through its ink, then reflecting off the paper (which is itself some color, even if that color is "close" to "white"), back through the ink, and to the eye. The display monitor's light starts out a different color from the sunlight, then is filtered through and reflected from very different materials than ink and paper. By the time the light reaches the eye from each object, they're very different. And each instance is a little different, owing to manufacturing quality variations.

And then gamma has to be factored in, which tends to dominate the color content reaching the eye. The gamma is a kind of nonlinear "contrast" (as in a TV control) in different frequencies, varying as the intensity of the same illumination is increased. But even that illumination generally isn't just the same color at all intensities, because it's emitted from some manufactured material that has its own gamma (or emission equivalent) and "color temperature [wikipedia.org] " bias. Which is in turn different from sunlight, which is more stable in its source color range than most manufactured materials (except lasers, a completely different kind of illumination that looks completely different from sunlight).

Color calibration works best when there's a feedback loop of the data passed between different output objects (like paper/ink and a display monitor), linked by a video sensor (that has its own color calibration problems). It's an extremely hard problem. When I was a member of the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG, who created the image file format - I helped with the color spaces spec), we spent a lot of time getting it close enough for commercial use. But we knew enough to tell that "solving" the problem 100% was not going to work. And even now, almost two decades later, it's still not solved. But every few years new tech makes it affordable for industries to add another "9" to what was once 99.999% accurate. The 30 bit gamut [wikipedia.org] of this display monitor means that it doesn't constrain the range of colors as much as have old technologies. But the calibration requries sophisticated processes and software to automate them, as well as a method for comparing to actual outputs. And it still can't account for variances in manufacturing the target output media.

For Hollywood, this problem might be close to solved, though. Because movies are moving to digital projection, which can be manufactured to high precision of consistency in materials and their interaction with light, and from the same parts as the production display monitors. If all the theaters used the same DLP chips, LEDs and image surfaces (or to the precisely same standard specs) for their projectors as the studios did for all their display monitors and as all people did for their home TVs, then colors would be pretty close to identical in all those environments (except for that variable ambient lighting). These display monitors might flexibly replicate a lot of different environments to match, but the matched objects are still highly variable. For $3500, they better deliver something good.

"what it is suppose to look like" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23726595)

Some day, when I'm president, illiterate motherfuckers who only learned to spell through phonetics are going to be executed in the public square.

"Suppose to look like?"

Fuck you, "editors."

Re:"what it is suppose to look like" (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726997)

Aw mon don be hipicrit. Yer poyntles vulgrisms er az awfel ez hiz badd speling. Melo owt.

irony (1)

marafa (745042) | more than 6 years ago | (#23726977)

what irony!
this site justecn or whatever is hosted at gator and they took it off line! right after i read another article which refered to hostgator here on slashdot!
heh!

Dr. Evil (5, Funny)

Tribbin (565963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727067)

One... BILLion colours...!

Meh... (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727145)

Give me a call when they make one with a CMYK output. [wikipedia.org]

Now i just need to upgrade my eyes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23727201)

Damn my eyes

Irony (1)

PhongUK (1301747) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727243)

Does anyone else see the irony in viewing a Colour Critical Display on a non-Colour-Critical-Display? :/

What monitors need to do (2, Informative)

TheSync (5291) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727367)

To date, I have not seen any LCD or Plasma monitor that can perform as well as certain projection D-ILAs in terms of the combination of luminance ranges, good black levels, contrast ratios, gamma accuracy, viewing angle, and coverage of the Rec. 709 gamut. But don't take my word for it, here [plasmadisp...lition.org] the Plasma Display coalition admits they can only cover 80% of Rec. 709 with their best displays, with many more falling in the 75% department.

From a digital television perspective I am much more interested in monitor gamut effectively covering the Rec. 709 color space, because that is all I can put on TV. Sure, it's OK to have extended gamut outside Rec. 709, but if you can't actually cover all of Rec. 709 gamut I don't care if you cover color outside that space. Similarly, I'm sure digital cinema people want the DCI gamut covered well first before having coverage outside that gamut.

On the LCD side, the production lines are changing so rapidly that two versions of the same type of panel from different months will have different results. I have seen a $300 Dell LCD computer monitor perform better than some professional television LCD displays that are priced 10 times as much.

My suggestion is to measure displays yourself, and ignore marketing literature. Of course, you need a good broadcast engineering lab to do that, not all networks have such a thing...

If you want to know what you need in a good monitor, see the EBU User requirements for Video Monitors [www.ebu.ch] . SMPTE is working on a set of recommendations as well.

I'm hoping that OLED displays will come to the rescue, but it will take a while for them to come up to needed sizes and maturity.

Color fidelity and viewing angle (1)

ortholattice (175065) | more than 6 years ago | (#23727375)

I'm probably behind the times, so maybe someone could clear this up for me.

The LCD display on my several-year-old Compaq laptop is quite unreliable in terms of viewing true color, for the simple reason that the contrast of different colors changes significantly depending on the vertical viewing angle. I can often make low-contrast or dark photos more visible by tilting the display away from me (to make them darker) or toward me (to make them lighter, but with some light colors fading to white and ironically white turning to gray). Different colors seem to behave somewhat differently. At extreme angles, some colors saturate but background details that are otherwise nearly invisible may become apparent. The "correct" angle seems to be a matter of subjective judgment, and sometimes I'll double check on my CRT display to make sure the colors of something I'm posting are reasonable.

So is the change with viewing angle not a problem anymore? Are LCDs good enough to be used for professional graphics work? Is there an objective spec of the insensitivity of color fidelity to viewing angle that a professional should look for?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?