Realistic colors for monitors ?
in [Asus]
|
From: MitchAlsup on 12 Apr 2010 12:18 On Apr 11, 6:53 pm, "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > The RGB color space does not contain/display all colors we humans see in > reality... > > In reality we humans see more colors in real-life than our monitors can > display. > > I do wonder what "changes" would be needed to the current system... What you need is a monitor with 6 colors {R,G,B and Y,V,T--yellow, violet, teal} This is in effect what the high gammut printers do. In addition, it is possible that a change from 8-bit A/Ds behing the electron guns the use of 10-bit A/Ds would help in the sensitivity of rendering department. But no monitor will ever be able to produce the "look" of green foliage being illuminated by sunlight from behind--the dynamic range the eye can see is simply larger than the dynamic range that the displaies can muster. Mitch
From: Paul Keinanen on 12 Apr 2010 14:46 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:21:38 +0200, Thomas Richter <thor(a)math.tu-berlin.de> wrote: >Skybuck Flying wrote: > >> I was wondering if nvidia is researching graphics cards and/or monitor which >> try to display "realistic colors" ?!? > >For that you would need monitors with an infinite number of primaries. >As (most) monitors and the color system of the computer-monitor >connection (say VGA and DVI) are based on three primaries, all colors >that can be reproduced by a monitor are contained in a triangle in the >xy color space whose edges are given by the (phyiscal) colors of the >monitor (inside the full gammut). Using readily available high efficiency CRT phosphors, the gamut is quite limited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB_color_space which is used on many computer monitors and HDTV displays. The current SDTV primaries do not differ much from these. The original (1953) NTSC primaries had the green point much closer to the top of the gamut, thus capable of producing deeper greens. Unfortunately, the available phosphors had a low efficiency, thus, producing dim pictures. >However, the gammut of visible colors >in this space is certainly *not* triangular, thus necessarily colors are >missing. > >It is not a matter of the monitor or the graphics card, but the whole >system to signal colors. > >> How many bits would be necessary to display all colors ? Would it still be >> an RGB system or would it need something else ? ;) > >Not a matter of bit-count (alone). The bit-count only defines the >precision by which colors can be represented, not the size of the gammut. > >> I can vagely remember one company investigating such technology and working >> together with some animation studio... like pixar ? or industrial light and >> magic ? > >OpenEXR, by ILM. But this is on high-dynamic range images, i.e. >representing several magnitudes of luminance. But it is still based on >three primaries, and so are (most) capture devices and (most) display >devices. IIRC, the primaries can be specified, thus it is possible to >describe "virtual" colors outside of the visible gammut and thus >describe all visible colors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_color A much more radical color space is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CIE1931_rgxy.png which would be OK for a transmission and production standard, but would cause a lot of problems displaying it. >However, since the monitor and the >monitor-computer link is constrained to "physical" colors, that itself >doesn't buy you much; it is a win for processing images - i.e. in the >image or movie processing toolchain, because coding loss can be avoided. >This is what it has been designed for. The http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CIExy1931_CIERGB.png could be quite good if monochromatic emitters at 700, 545 and 380 nm would be available. Wouldn't adding a fourth emitter at 515-520 nm cover the whole gamut ? While in the past it has been necessary to specify the update rate, spatial resolution, gamma and color space according to the available display technology (CRT), does it make any sense to design new image processing, storage and distribution standards according to some obsolete display standards, when most likely, the display technology will change every few years ?
From: Copacetic on 12 Apr 2010 15:05 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:46:26 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote: >The http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CIExy1931_CIERGB.png could >be quite good if monochromatic emitters at 700, 545 and 380 nm would >be available. Wouldn't adding a fourth emitter at 515-520 nm cover the >whole gamut ? Since they are illuminated pixels, what are the prospects for OLED being the leader in visual gamut coverage?
From: Norman Peelman on 12 Apr 2010 18:23 Skybuck Flying wrote: > "Norman Peelman" <npeelman(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4bc28573$0$4944$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> Skybuck Flying wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> The RGB color space does not contain/display all colors we humans see in >>> reality... >>> >>> In reality we humans see more colors in real-life than our monitors can >>> display. >>> >>> I was wondering if nvidia is researching graphics cards and/or monitor >>> which try to display "realistic colors" ?!? >>> >>> If not it would seem to me that "they" have the most to gain from such >>> technology and should therefore research/develop it ?!?! ;) :) >>> >>> Might be the next big thing or maybe not... >>> >>> I do wonder what "changes" would be needed to the current system... >>> >>> How many bits would be necessary to display all colors ? Would it still >>> be an RGB system or would it need something else ? ;) >>> >>> I can vagely remember one company investigating such technology and >>> working together with some animation studio... like pixar ? or industrial >>> light and magic ? >>> >>> Bye, >>> Skybuck. >> In reality our monitors can output more colors than our eyes can >> process. > > Maybe it's not about "number of colors" but the "color range" itself. > That's what I meant - more than we can process at any one time. > Like deep black, and very white. > > And very red and very blue, and very pink, very orange and so forth. > > Monitors seem to be limited to a certain color range. > > Bye, > Skybuck. > > -- Norman Registered Linux user #461062
From: Don Klipstein on 12 Apr 2010 22:35
In <4bc28573$0$4944$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Norman Peelman wrote: >Skybuck Flying wrote: >> Hello, >> >> The RGB color space does not contain/display all colors we humans see in >> reality... >> >> In reality we humans see more colors in real-life than our monitors can >> display. >> >> I was wondering if nvidia is researching graphics cards and/or monitor which >> try to display "realistic colors" ?!? >> >> If not it would seem to me that "they" have the most to gain from such >> technology and should therefore research/develop it ?!?! ;) :) >> >> Might be the next big thing or maybe not... >> >> I do wonder what "changes" would be needed to the current system... >> >> How many bits would be necessary to display all colors ? Would it still be >> an RGB system or would it need something else ? ;) >> >> I can vagely remember one company investigating such technology and working >> together with some animation studio... like pixar ? or industrial light and >> magic ? > > In reality our monitors can output more colors than our eyes can process. However, usual monitors cannot output some of the colors that human vision can process, including some that are common to see in real life, such as: * LEDs of a more pure red shade, such as most having nominal peak wavelength of 660 nm. Their "dominant wavelength" (which is a color specification largely meaning "hue") is usually around 640 or in the 640's of nm. * Other more-pure reds, such as common red diode lasers (usually in or near the 645-650 nm range), He-Ne lasers (632.8 nm), and incandescent red traffic signals (dominant wavelength is often close to 635 nm). Or any incandescent or daylight light source (or any of most xenon light sources) filtered by a #29 or #92 Wratten filter or Schott or similar longpass glass filters with cutoff wavelength (50% point) 620-665 nm, or other similar deep red longpass filters. * Deeper non-yellowish and less-yellowish greens, and deeper bluish greens, such as 532.8 nm green lasers, and most InGaN green LEDs including most LED green traffic signals. And especially an InGaN green or blue-green LED with dominant wavelength anywhere from 490 to 535 nm, after being filtered by common deep green acrylic sheet such as green "plexiglas". * Some deep blue light sources, such as most common turquisish blue InGaN LEDs with dominant wavelength 470-475 nm, 473 nm DPSS lasers, or almost any InGaN blue LED filtered by almost any deep blue filter. * Deep violetish-blue light sources, such as a "BLB" blacklight fluorescent lamp, a mercury vapor lamp filtered by a deep blue filter such as Wratten 47B or a deep blue dichroic filter, many "royal blue" LEDs especially if filtered by a deep blue filter, a violet or UV LED whose visible content is passed through a deep blue filter, a Cree "standard blue" LED filtered by a deep blue filter, or a He-Cd laser. * Deep violets and purples, such as combined output of a "royal blue" LED and output of a red one whose peak wavelength is 660 nm. * Most CRT monitors do not show truly deep greens, yellows, oranges or reds of any hue, since the red and green phosphors in those are only something like around 95% saturated (much less still for green according to the 1931 CIE chromaticity diagram, but I think largely because the green area is "distended" in that one.) - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |