karl shah-jenner wrote:
David writes:
: Oh, I know people are still pushing that line, but it's pretty outdated
: now so far as I can tell. You pretty much can't *buy* CRTs (except for
: at really absurd prices -- and if you're up for the absurd prices, you
: can now buy LCDs that have a bigger color gamut than any CRT; in fact,
: that display a bit MORE than the full Adobe RGB space). And they still
: take only 8-bit data. (Some clever people set up to use LED
: illumination behind the LCD, and then used colored LEDs and matched the
: LCD filter frequencies to the LED output and ended up with huge gamut.
: NEC I know, possibly others use this too.)
SED monitors will be even better than CRT's when they come out - but they'll still only be fed 8 bit colour from a video card unless it's a Matrox. 10 bit colour is ten bit colour. Irrespective of the gamut, 256 shades V 1024 shades, that's 4 times the gradient
I'm not sure if SED is the name for the thing I'm talking about, but the
stuff I'm talking about has been out for a while now; you can buy it, if
you bring a wheelbarrow of money. I don't believe they have any way to
feed them more than 8 bits, though; digital interface standard, you
know. Same as the printer drivers that way. But the point is, much
better gamut and fidelity than CRT monitors.
Sure, for the average user it is considered no big deal.
Those aren't for average users, they're for creeping-wacko high-end
super-critical users.
It's a bit like the average music enthusiast doesn't see a difference between records and MP3s - especially when they have a nice thump from their subwoofers and it sounds good in their car (!) An audio perfectionist easily perceives the difference through their high end audio gear.
The audio perfectionist can't tell the difference either, in a
double-blind study.
To *me*, the CD sounds much better than any vinyl I've ever heard,
including virgin vinyl master recordings played through $10k speakers
with the rest of the system to match. Because it does not hiss and pop
all the time.
Asks: 16 bit RAW, TIF or whatever - how do people manage them when they only see 8 bits?
Well, we don't see in bits. But the main purpose for 16-bit-per-channel
color is for *original* images; so that, *after manipulation*, there are
smooth gradients in the final displayable version.
http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=9565
"In "official" oscilloscope tests conducted by some government labs here, Matrox is still #1, "
gotta get my hands on that white paper..
: And yeah, the most aggressive games cards do tend to trade off color
: fidelity for frame rate, probably a good choice for their intended
: market but a disaster for us. Although I'm not sure if they do that
: when displaying simple bitmap data rather than rendering 3D on the card?
the tests still show a difference.
it has been made an outdated concept by the avalanche of lesser 2D card hype, but the difference is their for the eye to see.
So they've managed to mess up even the 2D? Sigh.
I upgraded from a Matrox to an nVidia a little while back, and
definitely got an improved image (due to DVI rather than analog
interface to the LCD).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
