Monitor Calibration

[DavidEccleston]

Re: Kayaker's points.

Color spaces. Another important one is P3, or DCI-P3. It is what the new iMacs use, likely what the new MacBooks use, and is what all the HDR 4K TVs use. This is what digital projectors in theatres use. This means these panels will drop in price and images in this color space will become more and more common. I'd seriously consider P3 vs. AdobeRGB.

Bits. I agree with your assessment. sRGB can be done in any number of bits. Original VGA was 6-bit. Commodore Amigas were 4-bit. A larger color space needs more bits to produce step-free gradients.

About 32-bit display options. This is just an optimization on the graphics card. It is far easier for the programmer and the hardware to deal with a pixel in a single 32-bit word than worry about 24-bit words. Typically graphics data with be X8R8G8B8 or A8R8G8B8, with "X" being unused, and "A" being alpha (transparency). I'm not up on the latest GPUs, but a quick look on the nVidia site doesn't reveal even their Titan X mentioning 10-bit color, and AMD mentions something about Deep Color, but I don't know enough to comment on what that is.

edit:
Seems a relevant 2016 post from someone who has tried it. http://forums.evga.com/FindPost/2510424
nVidia GTX cards allow 10-bit output from full-screen DirectX, but not in windowed/desktop mode. A Quadro w/ OpenGL can do 10-bit in windowed/desktop mode. They tried on a GTX 1080.

Looking on the AMD side (since Macs now support 10-bit DCI-P3, and are using AMD GPUs), I see that they've supported 10-bit for years (starting with HD 7000 series). I haven't seen any detail about fullscreen vs. windowed on the AMD side though, so it could have the same issues as nVidia.

Last, and likely most important, this post about 10-bit display getting support in Photoshop CC on Mac atleast tells you where you can find the option to enable "30-bit" mode. It should be the same or very similar on PC. Maybe it does work on your new GPU, but nobody thought Adobe hid the feature away in preferences menu, instead of just using your current display mode.
https://petapixel.com/2015/12/04/ado...-to-enable-it/

[Kayaker72]

Thank you David.

in addition to your link, I have found this link that explains the process a bit (and the photoshop setting modification that you mention) and also links to here, where you can download a test chart to see if you are functioning 10 bit in photoshop.

Bottom line, two tests, and my monitor set up failed both. Looks like I am still functioning in 8 bit even with the new GPU (GeForce 1050 ti), and DisplayPort connection.

I have to admit that I am going to take a step back and think about whether chasing 10 bit is worth it.

I could wrap my head around needing to upgrade from a low-mid level GPU bought in 2011, but when the latest release isn't getting it done and you need to jump up to GPUs intended for workstations????

The second, and perhaps more critical, is I have now added software to the list in the chain that needs to be compatible. So, GPU, cable/connection, monitor and now software. I rarely use Photoshop and instead use Lightroom. I have looked under Preferences/Performance in LR and do not see any way to enable 30 bit.

So, does LR only work in 8 bit? In this forum in 2014 and here in 2015, the answer was LR is only 8 bit (to the monitor). If still true, what good is it for me to have a monitor that can function in 10 bit?

Thanks again.

[Kayaker72]

did you use a calibrator before and after Brant ? I am curious to know if the color output did change after upgrading the graphics card. I bought a monitor that was advertised at 1 billion colors but when I calibrate , I am only getting 74% abode rgb but 100% srgb. I have an older graphics card though.

Yes. Similar to James, I gave up on the software that came from Benq (Palette). It actually stopped working for me, but I just checked and it is working again. So I may try it again.

But I calibrated my monitor through x-rite display pro's software that also lets you look at delta E. I am not sure if I would know if the color output changed with the new graphics card. But in terms of color accuracy, there does seem to have been an improvement. Granted, very modest, but testing through the x-rite software my old card and D-DVI connection was doing very well (avg delta E = 0.43 and max delta E = 1.78 in one run, another run avg delta E = 0.39 with max delta E = 0.93 in the second). I only have run one calibration and validation test with the new card, but it came back avg delta E = 0.32 and max delta E = 0.7.

But all of those numbers are very good. So I am now happy with the color accuracy of the new monitor as I trust x-rite much more than Benq's software.


As for the 1 billion colors, that is likely a reference to 10 bit color depth, which is different than color space. So, both of those can be true. You can have 10 bit color depth (or your monitor can, as I am finding, you need the right GPU, cable, monitor and software to actually have 10 bit color depth) in a sRGB color space or 10 bit color depth in an Adobe RGB color space. Think of color depth as subdivisions, 10 bit color depth gives you 1.07 billion subdivisions of whatever colorspace you are working. 8 bit color depth gives you 16.7 million subdivisions of whatever colorspace you are working in. For your monitor that seems to be 100%sRGB.

My prints came back today.

The exposure was pretty much spot on; some of the shadows in one portion of the print was slightly darker but not a big deal at all. The colors looked good with the exception of the skin tones; they were slightly warmer in the print. I believe that is due to the fact that Mpix prints at D50 and I'm on D65. I'm going to order the same prints and have them color correct the prints to see what the actual difference is.

I've read that an update to JPG is coming out to support 10bit color depth but it didn't indicate when. :| How did you test your color depth? I tried installed the BenQ software and it kept crashing.

I'm using DisplayPort. DVI-D works but doesn't perform as well at higher resolutions. I'm also running mine on sRGB as that is what most of the world is using.

And that is what matters, right? The intent of this is to process our photos in a way that when they are output it is as close as possible to what we thought. I am about ready to do the print test myself, and really, that is the ultimate test.

Besides mpix, any other prolabs you recommend? I had an interaction with a snarky agent from mpix 2-3 years ago. This was before I calibrated my monitor and he was pretty condescending about it all.

[Kayaker72]

I just did an online chat with Adobe.

End conclusion was that LR is 8 bit.

They did provide a few interesting links:

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/he...anagement.html

https://feedback.photoshop.com/photo...lter_by%5D=all

[Photog82]

Yes. Similar to James, I gave up on the software that came from Benq (Palette). It actually stopped working for me, but I just checked and it is working again. So I may try it again.

But I calibrated my monitor through x-rite display pro's software that also lets you look at delta E. I am not sure if I would know if the color output changed with the new graphics card. But in terms of color accuracy, there does seem to have been an improvement. Granted, very modest, but testing through the x-rite software my old card and D-DVI connection was doing very well (avg delta E = 0.43 and max delta E = 1.78 in one run, another run avg delta E = 0.39 with max delta E = 0.93 in the second). I only have run one calibration and validation test with the new card, but it came back avg delta E = 0.32 and max delta E = 0.7.

But all of those numbers are very good. So I am now happy with the color accuracy of the new monitor as I trust x-rite much more than Benq's software.


As for the 1 billion colors, that is likely a reference to 10 bit color depth, which is different than color space. So, both of those can be true. You can have 10 bit color depth (or your monitor can, as I am finding, you need the right GPU, cable, monitor and software to actually have 10 bit color depth) in a sRGB color space or 10 bit color depth in an Adobe RGB color space. Think of color depth as subdivisions, 10 bit color depth gives you 1.07 billion subdivisions of whatever colorspace you are working. 8 bit color depth gives you 16.7 million subdivisions of whatever colorspace you are working in. For your monitor that seems to be 100%sRGB.



And that is what matters, right? The intent of this is to process our photos in a way that when they are output it is as close as possible to what we thought. I am about ready to do the print test myself, and really, that is the ultimate test.

Besides mpix, any other prolabs you recommend? I had an interaction with a snarky agent from mpix 2-3 years ago. This was before I calibrated my monitor and he was pretty condescending about it all.

Millers is another good lab, however, Mpix has been VERY good to me. There's been a few occasions where prints shipped very dark, at first I thought it was my monitor but it wasn't. They reprinted all of the prints for free and shipped them out the same day. Their customer service for the past few years has been really good.

I stopped looking into all of the technical stuff on the screen such as 10bit, AdobeRGB, etc. What's the point right now when print technology has not increased and most people can't see the difference anyways. :|

Maybe that will change down the road, but for now, I'm saving myself the frustration. At least I know my colors are calibrated the way I want them.

[Kayaker72]

Millers is another good lab, however, Mpix has been VERY good to me. There's been a few occasions where prints shipped very dark, at first I thought it was my monitor but it wasn't. They reprinted all of the prints for free and shipped them out the same day. Their customer service for the past few years has been really good.

Exact same issue, but very different response from Mpix. I was making an album for a family member in 2014 and decided to do a test. I sent pictures to 4 labs: Mpix, Adorampix, Snapfish (my wife loves their sales), and a local Walgreens. I sent the entire 200 picture album to Mpix and only 8-10 pictures to the other labs assuming Mpix would come out best. The entire set from Mpix came out a half to a full stop dark while, in terms of brightness, the other 3 labs were good. I called Mpix, who were double the price of the next highest lab (Adoramapix) and 6-8 times that of snapfish, and tried to talk to them about it. Just to keep this short, they refused to reprint the pictures and had a bit of attitude about it.

That said, other than being dark, they were the best. Granted, only slightly better than Adoramapix (who I have used since). But you could really see the difference between Mpix/Adoramapix vs Walgreens/Snapfish.

I stopped looking into all of the technical stuff on the screen such as 10bit, AdobeRGB, etc. What's the point right now when print technology has not increased and most people can't see the difference anyways. :|

Maybe that will change down the road, but for now, I'm saving myself the frustration. At least I know my colors are calibrated the way I want them.

I think I have hit this point. My winter project is almost complete, I have learned a fair amount. I'll send out some prints just to confirm, but we live in an 8 bit world. I can live with that.

What does crack me up is that groups like Netflix are starting to stream 4K 10bit (even heard reference to 12 bit), but for photography, we have 8 bit outputs.

[Photog82]

I have Photoshop set up to use my new monitor profile; do I export my JPG with that profile or the standard sRGB?

[DavidEccleston]

Your monitor profile tells the computer how to translate from standard color values into levels your monitor needs to show the correct color. Nobody else needs an image tailored to your monitor. If you had two monitors, even you wouldn't want an image encoded for just one specific monitor. Software should take care of it, converting from the image's monitor 1 profile to a neutral standard, then converting again into a profile to display on monitor 2, but like all conversions, it can cause loss of precision.

You will want to export images a standard profile. Typically that would be sRGB unless the image need a wider gamut, and then pick another standard space like adobeRGB or DCI-P3.

Most web browsers these days understand color profiles, so you shouldn't have much trouble with others viewing your images if you use something other than sRGB. You may have trouble getting correct prints if you stray from sRGB unless your print-shop explicitly mentions using other color profiles.

[Photog82]

That's what I thought, so I found a problem, when I save as JPG in PS, if I uncheck that profile it doesn't give an option for anything else. I don't use the Export feature as it strips out my camera data, lens info, etc.

The Save As feature now saves the JPG with Adobe RGB if I uncheck my monitor profile.

[sedwards]

That's what I thought, so I found a problem, when I save as JPG in PS, if I uncheck that profile it doesn't give an option for anything else. I don't use the Export feature as it strips out my camera data, lens info, etc.

The Save As feature now saves the JPG with Adobe RGB if I uncheck my monitor profile.

If you use file-export-save for web(ctrl+shift+alt+s) , you can select to include the camera and lens info in the metadata menu . Not really sure if using this method does anything with the monitor profile.