Some examples that show why a wide gamut monitor matters:

Started Apr 26, 2014 | Discussions thread
OP bronxbombers4 Senior Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: basically

MisterBG wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

MisterBG wrote:

Mentor2 wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

just trying to counter all off the posts that try to toss off wide gamut as a bunch of marketing hogwash meant to sucker people into getting something useless that doesn't matter at all

and all the talk about how there is no reason to bother to try to move things more towards a wide gamut/color-managed standard

(I mean I've even seen posts where people try actively scare people away from wide gamut monitors, even really, really great displays, which makes no sense at all today considering that any even remotely decent wide gamut monitor these days has a pretty solid, at worst sRGB emulation mode for use with non-color managed software, and most actually can be set to simulate sRGB better than 95% of sRGB onitors since most sRGB monitors actually don't quite match sRGB and can't be made to exactly match sRGB).

We will eventually have wide gamut monitors readily available and then they will be the only available but we need to go through the tiny incremental changes to allow the suppliers and manufacturers to reap the greatest profits.

I assume these are to match all the affordable wide gamut printers which will be flooding the market soon?

What is the point in a wide gamut display when your final output is limited to sRGB?

1. Who says the final output always has to be print. It's kind of a fact that these days 99% images taken never get printed.

In that case I'm one of the 1%, and what do you mean by a "kind of a fact"?
It's either a fact (citation required) or it isn't.

I don't have verification (I vaguely seem to recall there actually had been some study though and this was even a couple years ago when printing was a bit more common than today even and it was some rather very low %), but I mean look at how many pictures people take, talk of 200-2000 shots at a sporting event, 800-4000 on a vacation or all the non-stop selfies that people are taking non-stop and so on and so forth. Maybe it's not quite as low as 1% but I bet not too much more than 1% of snaps taken ever get printed.

Note I wasn't saying that only 1% of people ever print, just that a very low percentage of all the digital snaps that get taken ever get printed. I bet a lot less than 1% of all the instagram party pics and selfies and so on ever get printed and they make up an awful lot of the snaps that get taken.

2. Who says that if you print you are limited to sRGB? Lots of printers can print all sorts of colors that sRGB can't handle, some even have a few shades that even wide gamut monitors can't show.

That's the reason I added "Affordable" to my previous post.

What is an affordable printer? Epson R800 can print colors that are not in sRGB. So can R3000 and tons more from Epson. I'd be their cheapest ones can too. Same with Canon printers.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow