Reading mode: Light Dark

Will perovskite nanocrystals obsolete DCI P3?

Go to last post
CAcreeks

CAcreeks

Forum Pro
Messages
20,533
Solutions
22
Reaction score
3,692
Location
US
I've been wondering what color space will replace sRGB for popularity and/or Adobe RGB to permit printing of Pantone colors (except safety orange, ha ha).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_orange

Apple has already chosen DCI P3, possibly prematurely. It contains more yellow-orange-red colors than sRGB or Adobe RGB, I suppose because (U)HDTV technology recently made a lot of progress on these colors.

Austinian's already-full thread mentioning the Science magazine article about perovskite nanocrystals made me think about blue-purple. Those are the colors that supposed will be improved (based on web reading; I didn't read the Science article). DCI-P3 doesn't go any further into that area than sRGB or Adobe RGB, both of which go further than NTSC (1953).
 
Last edited:
CAcreeks said:
I've been wondering what color space will replace sRGB for popularity and/or Adobe RGB to permit printing of Pantone colors (except safety orange, ha ha).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_orange

Apple has already chosen DCI P3, possibly prematurely.
Click to expand...
Focus on video it seems. And that's fine
CAcreeks said:
It contains more yellow-orange-red colors than sRGB or Adobe RGB, I suppose because (U)HDTV technology recently made a lot of progress on these colors.
Click to expand...
While Adobe RGB (1998) "contains" more green/teal. Looking at the two in 3D, seems a bit of a wash.

So for those of us working in a much larger working space color gamut than either, and printing to color gamuts that exceed both (in many areas of color space), is either adequate? Will any display gamut be large enough for most print output color spaces?

White gamut plot is Adobe RGB (1998). Full color is DCI-P3.
White gamut plot is Adobe RGB (1998). Full color is DCI-P3.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
 
CAcreeks said:
I've been wondering what color space will replace sRGB for popularity and/or Adobe RGB to permit printing of Pantone colors (except safety orange, ha ha).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_orange

Apple has already chosen DCI P3, possibly prematurely. It contains more yellow-orange-red colors than sRGB or Adobe RGB, I suppose because (U)HDTV technology recently made a lot of progress on these colors.

Austinian's already-full thread mentioning the Science magazine article about perovskite nanocrystals made me think about blue-purple. Those are the colors that supposed will be improved (based on web reading; I didn't read the Science article). DCI-P3 doesn't go any further into that area than sRGB or Adobe RGB, both of which go further than NTSC (1953).
Click to expand...
Remember, what's in "Science" is basic research, not what's going to be mass-marketed in the near future.

And of course there are competing technologies like OLED.

The crystal ball is...cloudy. :-)

Something else I've been thinking about (from a position of fearless ignorance): ;-)

Looking at the shape of the "usual" image depicting the colors humans can see, I don't know if any color display with only three "real color" primaries can cover it all.

Instead of triads of colored subpixels, do we need pentads, decads, 'manymanyads'?
 
digidog said:
Member said:
Apple has already chosen DCI P3, possibly prematurely.
Click to expand...
Focus on video it seems. And that's fine
Click to expand...
Yes, but due to large manufacturing runs, DCI P3 capable monitors are likely to become very widespread. I suspect that almost every new UHD monitor and TV reaches further into orange-red than Adobe RGB colorspace. So at some point, websites would be best advised to use DCI P3 as the delivery colorspace, instead of sRGB. (If browsers support it.)
Member said:
Member said:
It contains more yellow-orange-red colors than sRGB or Adobe RGB
Click to expand...
While Adobe RGB (1998) "contains" more green/teal. Looking at the two in 3D, seems a bit of a wash.
Click to expand...
Pantone 17-5641 (teal-ish) was the color of some year (not this year)
Pantone 17-5641 (teal-ish) was the color of some year (not this year)
Member said:
So for those of us working in a much larger working space color gamut than either, and printing to color gamuts that exceed both (in many areas of color space), is either adequate? Will any display gamut be large enough for most print output color spaces?
Click to expand...
Frankly digidog, I don't give a damn about printing.

But these are good questions you ask. We used to have a 6-color printer (light cyan and magenta) but it did not produce very good reds, so I doubt it could print any colors that are in the DCI P3 colorspace but not in Adobe RGB.
 
CAcreeks said:
digidog said:
CAcreeks said:
Apple has already chosen DCI P3, possibly prematurely.
Click to expand...
Focus on video it seems. And that's fine
Click to expand...
Yes, but due to large manufacturing runs, DCI P3 capable monitors are likely to become very widespread. I suspect that almost every new UHD monitor and TV reaches further into orange-red than Adobe RGB colorspace. So at some point, websites would be best advised to use DCI P3 as the delivery colorspace, instead of sRGB. (If browsers support it.)
Click to expand...
That's fine and we should recall how Adobe RGB (1998) is kind of a hack an incorrectly based on another video standard. If in the market for a wide gamut display, either would be fine for my needs.
CAcreeks said:
CAcreeks said:
CAcreeks said:
It contains more yellow-orange-red colors than sRGB or Adobe RGB
Click to expand...
While Adobe RGB (1998) "contains" more green/teal. Looking at the two in 3D, seems a bit of a wash.
Click to expand...
The 3D colorspace graphs (CIELUV 1976) are most accurate, but I prefer the 2D graphics (CIE 1931) because they're easier to read. This one shows Adobe RGB missing a big chunk.
Click to expand...
I can switch but prefer 3D: so much more telling based on how you spin it.
CAcreeks said:
Pantone 17-5641 (teal-ish) was the color of some year (not this year)
Pantone 17-5641 (teal-ish) was the color of some year (not this year)
CAcreeks said:
So for those of us working in a much larger working space color gamut than either, and printing to color gamuts that exceed both (in many areas of color space), is either adequate? Will any display gamut be large enough for most print output color spaces?
Click to expand...
Frankly digidog, I don't give a damn about printing.
Click to expand...
It's useful to have a wide(er) gamut than sRGB for soft proofing although nothing today will get us close the gamut of a modern ink jet (and probably never will). So for those of us printing, and soft proofing, bigger gamut just provides a better soft proof.

Never having to print makes all this gamut difference a bit less an issue.
CAcreeks said:
But these are good questions you ask. We used to have a 6-color printer (light cyan and magenta) but it did not produce very good reds, so I doubt it could print any colors that are in the DCI P3 colorspace but not in Adobe RGB.
Click to expand...
There will always be a gamut disconnect. No printer can produce all of the sRGB color gamut. And sRGB cannot contain anywhere near all the colors of an output device. It's like trying to fit round pegs in square holes. For those of us printing, the display is an intermediary device.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
 
digidog said:
... we should recall how Adobe RGB (1998) is kind of a hack an incorrectly based on another video standard.
Click to expand...
I did not know that! I found Bruce Fraser's paper about new colorspaces in Photoshop 5.0:

Loading…

web.archive.org
Member said:
I can switch but prefer 3D: so much more telling based on how you spin it.
Click to expand...
Yes, they say 3D is much more indicative of the actual range of colors in the colorspace.

Maybe colorspaces could be shown by panorama plug-in like one sees on Facebook. Most of them go side-to-side, but I guess they could go up and down too. (?)
 
CAcreeks said:
digidog said:
... we should recall how Adobe RGB (1998) is kind of a hack an incorrectly based on another video standard.
Click to expand...
I did not know that! I found Bruce Fraser's paper about new colorspaces in Photoshop 5.0:

https://web.archive.org/web/2005050...m/products/adobemag/archive/pdfs/98auhtbf.pdf
Click to expand...
Ah, I miss Bruce (my mentor).

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

Beginning in 1997, Adobe Systems was looking into creating ICC profiles that its consumers could use in conjunction with Photoshop's new color management features. Since not many applications at the time had any ICC color management, most operating systems did not ship with useful profiles.

Lead developer of Photoshop, Thomas Knoll decided to build an ICC profile around specifications he found in the documentation for the SMPTE 240M standard, the precursor to Rec. 709. SMPTE 240M's gamut was wider than that of the sRGB color space, but not by much. However, with the release of Photoshop 5.0 nearing, Adobe made the decision to include the profile within the software.

Although users loved the wider range of reproducible colors, those familiar with the SMPTE 240M specifications contacted Adobe, informing the company that it had copied the values that described idealized primaries, not actual standard ones. The real values were much closer to sRGB's, which avid Photoshop consumers did not enjoy as a working environment. To make matters worse, an engineer had made an error when copying the red primary chromaticity coordinates, resulting in an even more inaccurate representation of the SMPTE standard.

Adobe tried numerous tactics to correct the profile, such as correcting the red primary and changing the white point to match that of the CIE Standard Illuminant D50, yet all of the adjustments made CMYK conversion worse than before. In the end, Adobe decided to keep the "incorrect" profile, but changed the name to Adobe RGB (1998) in order to avoid a trademark search or infringement.[1]
CAcreeks said:
CAcreeks said:
I can switch but prefer 3D: so much more telling based on how you spin it.
Click to expand...
Yes, they say 3D is much more indicative of the actual range of colors in the colorspace.
Click to expand...
Well yes, you see the entire color space.
CAcreeks said:
Maybe colorspaces could be shown by panorama plug-in like one sees on Facebook.
Click to expand...
No idea, I don't do Facebook. :-)
 
digidog said:
Beginning in 1997, Adobe Systems was looking into creating ICC profiles that its consumers could use in conjunction with Photoshop's new color management features. Since not many applications at the time had any ICC color management, most operating systems did not ship with useful profiles.

Lead developer of Photoshop, Thomas Knoll decided to build an ICC profile around specifications he found in the documentation for the SMPTE 240M standard, the precursor to Rec. 709. [SMTPE = Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers.] SMPTE 240M's gamut was wider than that of the sRGB color space, but not by much. However, with the release of Photoshop 5.0 nearing, Adobe made the decision to include the profile within the software.

Although users loved the wider range of reproducible colors, those familiar with the SMPTE 240M specifications contacted Adobe, informing the company that it had copied the values that described idealized primaries, not actual standard ones. The real values were much closer to sRGB's, which avid Photoshop consumers did not enjoy as a working environment. To make matters worse, an engineer had made an error when copying the red primary chromaticity coordinates, resulting in an even more inaccurate representation of the SMPTE standard.

Adobe tried numerous tactics to correct the profile, such as correcting the red primary and changing the white point to match that of the CIE Standard Illuminant D50, yet all of the adjustments made CMYK conversion worse than before. In the end, Adobe decided to keep the "incorrect" profile, but changed the name to Adobe RGB (1998) in order to avoid a trademark search or infringement.[1]
Click to expand...
Thanks for the fascinating story, which should be added to Wikipedia.

That's quite an accident of history where a preliminary spec (and maybe mis-numbering of red primary) resulted in a colorspace that is so ideal for CMYK printing. Rec. 709 contains much less green gamut, based on plots I've seen.
 
CAcreeks said:
digidog said:
Beginning in 1997, Adobe Systems was looking into creating ICC profiles that its consumers could use in conjunction with Photoshop's new color management features. Since not many applications at the time had any ICC color management, most operating systems did not ship with useful profiles.

Lead developer of Photoshop, Thomas Knoll decided to build an ICC profile around specifications he found in the documentation for the SMPTE 240M standard, the precursor to Rec. 709. [SMTPE = Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers.] SMPTE 240M's gamut was wider than that of the sRGB color space, but not by much. However, with the release of Photoshop 5.0 nearing, Adobe made the decision to include the profile within the software.

Although users loved the wider range of reproducible colors, those familiar with the SMPTE 240M specifications contacted Adobe, informing the company that it had copied the values that described idealized primaries, not actual standard ones. The real values were much closer to sRGB's, which avid Photoshop consumers did not enjoy as a working environment. To make matters worse, an engineer had made an error when copying the red primary chromaticity coordinates, resulting in an even more inaccurate representation of the SMPTE standard.

Adobe tried numerous tactics to correct the profile, such as correcting the red primary and changing the white point to match that of the CIE Standard Illuminant D50, yet all of the adjustments made CMYK conversion worse than before. In the end, Adobe decided to keep the "incorrect" profile, but changed the name to Adobe RGB (1998) in order to avoid a trademark search or infringement.[1]
Click to expand...
Thanks for the fascinating story, which should be added to Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
That's it, above! :-)
 
We should just go straight to ProPhoto, and if not that, then Adobe Wide Gamut. Both of them cover a lot of the CIE Lab colour space of visible colours, way more than any current colour space. ProPhoto is over 90%, and AWG is like 75%.

The issue with the larger colour spaces though, is if you don't work in higher bit depths, it is easier to cause posterization (banding). With ProPhoto, it is recommended to work in 16bit, as 8bit will definitely cause posterization.
 
Jack Hogan said:
Jack Hogan said:
Austinian wrote: Looking at the shape of the "usual" image depicting the colors humans can see, I don't know if any color display with only three "real color" primaries can cover it all.

Instead of triads of colored subpixels, do we need pentads, decads, 'manymanyads'?
Click to expand...
Some are working on it .
Click to expand...
Interesting! I wonder why I haven't seen this widely discussed; I'd think the videophiles would be all over it; perhaps there are tradeoffs.

Thank you, this will give me something novel to research today.
 
Atarijedi said:
We should just go straight to ProPhoto, and if not that, then Adobe Wide Gamut. Both of them cover a lot of the CIE Lab colour space of visible colours, way more than any current colour space. ProPhoto is over 90%, and AWG is like 75%.

The issue with the larger colour spaces though, is if you don't work in higher bit depths, it is easier to cause posterization (banding). With ProPhoto, it is recommended to work in 16bit, as 8bit will definitely cause posterization.
Click to expand...
Maybe and it depends 😏 but considering the original data is high bit from raw, stick with high bit editing,

FWIW the late great Bruce Fraser did work for Kodak testing ProPhoto RGB and provided that basic observation. And editing in any color space in 8 bits per color may (may) cause banding depending on many possibilities. If your concern is this kind of data loss, edit in high bit in any color space.
 
Atarijedi said:
We should just go straight to ProPhoto, and if not that, then Adobe Wide Gamut. Both of them cover a lot of the CIE Lab colour space of visible colours, way more than any current colour space. ProPhoto is over 90%, and AWG is like 75%.

The issue with the larger colour spaces though, is if you don't work in higher bit depths, it is easier to cause posterization (banding). With ProPhoto, it is recommended to work in 16bit, as 8bit will definitely cause posterization.
Click to expand...
The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, the organization which gives the Oscar awards, has developed the ACES AP0 color space which covers the entirety of the CIE xyY color horseshoe at a high dynamic range, with good precision, as it uses 16-bit floating point. The Academy also recommends using this color space as a raw-like archival format for storing digital motion picture data.

Academy ACES AP0 is better than ProPhoto as it not only covers 100% of the gamut but also a smaller percentage of its total coverage is imaginary. Also, it has a large amount of highlight headroom. However, it requires a negative value to specify its blue primary, and last I checked, Photoshop does not accept negative values.

Loading…

www.acescentral.com
 
Mark Scott Abeln said:
Atarijedi said:
We should just go straight to ProPhoto, and if not that, then Adobe Wide Gamut. Both of them cover a lot of the CIE Lab colour space of visible colours, way more than any current colour space. ProPhoto is over 90%, and AWG is like 75%.

The issue with the larger colour spaces though, is if you don't work in higher bit depths, it is easier to cause posterization (banding). With ProPhoto, it is recommended to work in 16bit, as 8bit will definitely cause posterization.
Click to expand...
The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, the organization which gives the Oscar awards, has developed the ACES AP0 color space which covers the entirety of the CIE xyY color horseshoe at a high dynamic range, with good precision, as it uses 16-bit floating point. The Academy also recommends using this color space as a raw-like archival format for storing digital motion picture data.

Academy ACES AP0 is better than ProPhoto as it not only covers 100% of the gamut but also a smaller percentage of its total coverage is imaginary. Also, it has a large amount of highlight headroom. However, it requires a negative value to specify its blue primary, and last I checked, Photoshop does not accept negative values.

http://www.acescentral.com

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
Love to see a gamut map. Can’t understand how an RGB color space with three primaries can be shaped to cover CIE “horseshoe” shaped entirely with out much larger “imaginary “ colors than say Prophoto RGB. But I haven’t finished my morning coffee ☕️

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
Last edited:
Mark Scott Abeln said:
Atarijedi said:
We should just go straight to ProPhoto, and if not that, then Adobe Wide Gamut. Both of them cover a lot of the CIE Lab colour space of visible colours, way more than any current colour space. ProPhoto is over 90%, and AWG is like 75%.

The issue with the larger colour spaces though, is if you don't work in higher bit depths, it is easier to cause posterization (banding). With ProPhoto, it is recommended to work in 16bit, as 8bit will definitely cause posterization.
Click to expand...
The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, the organization which gives the Oscar awards, has developed the ACES AP0 color space which covers the entirety of the CIE xyY color horseshoe at a high dynamic range, with good precision, as it uses 16-bit floating point. The Academy also recommends using this color space as a raw-like archival format for storing digital motion picture data.

Academy ACES AP0 is better than ProPhoto as it not only covers 100% of the gamut but also a smaller percentage of its total coverage is imaginary. Also, it has a large amount of highlight headroom. However, it requires a negative value to specify its blue primary, and last I checked, Photoshop does not accept negative values.
Click to expand...
I think for the foreseeable future the best bet in terms of an output color space would be Rec.2020, there is a thread about it elsewhere on this forum. Its primaries are real, it encompasses Pointer's gamut (i.e. all colors resulting from diffuse reflection) and virtually all non-fluorescent printable colors. Plus it is coming to a monitor and UHDTV near you by, you guessed it, 2020.

Jack
 
Last edited:
digidog said:
Mark Scott Abeln said:
Atarijedi said:
We should just go straight to ProPhoto, and if not that, then Adobe Wide Gamut. Both of them cover a lot of the CIE Lab colour space of visible colours, way more than any current colour space. ProPhoto is over 90%, and AWG is like 75%.

The issue with the larger colour spaces though, is if you don't work in higher bit depths, it is easier to cause posterization (banding). With ProPhoto, it is recommended to work in 16bit, as 8bit will definitely cause posterization.
Click to expand...
The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, the organization which gives the Oscar awards, has developed the ACES AP0 color space which covers the entirety of the CIE xyY color horseshoe at a high dynamic range, with good precision, as it uses 16-bit floating point. The Academy also recommends using this color space as a raw-like archival format for storing digital motion picture data.

Academy ACES AP0 is better than ProPhoto as it not only covers 100% of the gamut but also a smaller percentage of its total coverage is imaginary. Also, it has a large amount of highlight headroom. However, it requires a negative value to specify its blue primary, and last I checked, Photoshop does not accept negative values.

http://www.acescentral.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Austinian said:
Jack Hogan said:
Austinian said:
Austinian wrote: Looking at the shape of the "usual" image depicting the colors humans can see, I don't know if any color display with only three "real color" primaries can cover it all.

Instead of triads of colored subpixels, do we need pentads, decads, 'manymanyads'?
Click to expand...
Some are working on it .
Click to expand...
Interesting! I wonder why I haven't seen this widely discussed; I'd think the videophiles would be all over it; perhaps there are tradeoffs.

Thank you, this will give me something novel to research today.
Click to expand...
Meh, the extra cost of adding yellow pixels might not be worthwhile. Using Sharp's own diagram, it looks like newer UHDV screens with highly saturated reds already cover the extra colors, which look to be inside DCI-P3. And for some reason Sharp's Quattron does not cover as much blue as a "standard" HDTV. Of course the diagram could be wrong. If a fourth color is implemented, it probably should be cyan-green.

4b5a46fab7704d5182a89e5b34385e10.jpg
 
Last edited:
CAcreeks said:
Austinian said:
Jack Hogan said:
CAcreeks said:
Austinian wrote: Looking at the shape of the "usual" image depicting the colors humans can see, I don't know if any color display with only three "real color" primaries can cover it all.

Instead of triads of colored subpixels, do we need pentads, decads, 'manymanyads'?
Click to expand...
Some are working on it .
Click to expand...
Interesting! I wonder why I haven't seen this widely discussed; I'd think the videophiles would be all over it; perhaps there are tradeoffs.

Thank you, this will give me something novel to research today.
Click to expand...
Meh, the extra cost of adding yellow pixels might not be worthwhile. Using Sharp's own diagram, it looks like newer UHDV screens with highly saturated reds already cover the extra colors, which look to be inside DCI-P3. And for some reason Sharp's Quattron does not cover as much blue as a "standard" HDTV. Of course the diagram could be wrong. If a fourth color is implemented, it probably should be cyan-green.
Click to expand...
Meh, Sharp's way ahead of that ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top