|
DL Cade
DPReview Contributor
Lives in
New York, NY, United States
Works as a
Writer/Editor
Joined on
May 9, 2017
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |  |  |
| The king of the mountain by Dan Paris from Landscape with Wildlife | PA020047.Bald Eagle Approach.2 by Hornsbee from BIF | Couples' oh No moment! by mythshri from Seated Couples | Big eyes by Minas_Eye from Eye - macro/close-up | Bon appetit! by valenttin from Van een mug een olifant maken | THREE BOWLER HATS by FINEART4YPvK from Men Wearing Hats |
toni2: Someone knows why laptop PC's have hdmi cropped output (less colours than with a desktop PC)? Fewer colors, or at least that's what it seems.
Very much depends on the laptop. For your average consumer laptop that isn't made for "gaming" or "creator" work, even if they have a dedicated GPU, they use a hybrid system that tries to decide when to use the iGPU and when to use the discrete GPU. This system is usually pretty good at switching to the discrete GPU when you're playing graphically demanding games, but some laptops I've tested refuse to switch when you're in creative applications like Photoshop.
Because of this, you'd be limited to 8-bits per channel, even if your display has FRC and can produce 10-bits-per-channel.
The best case scenario are laptops (like the AERO 16 OLED) that have a MUX switch so you can manually tell the laptop "use the discrete GPU" and then use something like NVIDIA Control Panel to set your color depth manually.
g p witteveen: For full value, though, it is not enough for produce correct colors. The persons who view the photo (or its printout version) would have to tune their screens, small or large, too, right? Analogous to 4k or 6k or 8k content: unless the end device is capable, the full value is not conveyed. This is not to say "don't bother" to make your own photos (video) its best, though.
Horshack makes a good point^. Also, the general justification for "why calibrate when it won't be viewed on a calibrated display" is that, even if someone is viewing your work on their uncalibrated screen, you don't want to pile your own uncalibrated output on top of theirs. As someone else mentioned in another comment, they're used to the quirks that their own screen produces, but if you pile your own uncalibrated output on top of theirs, the result could be much worse (two wrongs don't make a right and all that).
spider-mario: Two comments:
1. A step seems to be missing between 3 and 4. After calibrating in step 3, you would measure the display chain in its calibrated state before you can output an ICC profile.
2. “The problem with this approach is that your calibration curves can't create new values, it can only adjust the 256 values per channel that are being sent from your GPU.”
Many GPUs support higher-bit-depth calibration LUTs. Some of them (AMD https://discuss.pixls.us/t/wayland-color-management/10804/370 ) can even dither the output of such LUTs for 8-bit displays, effectively creating new values.
Hey spider-mario,
Thanks for the feedback! I definitely left out some details and simplified things a bit, and the whole process varies from software to software as well. I realized after writing this that the latest Spyder X2 software doesn't even run a verification, which is wild to me...
And yes, you're absolutely right that many GPUs support higher-bit-depth calibration LUTs, but again, I tried to keep things simple and still ended up with a 3000+ word article haha. At some point I'd love to go into detail on minutia like "best graphics cards for accurate color" etc. etc., but that might be a bit too niche even for DPR's readership.
panther fan: Great article!
Small correction, for 10bit displays obviously it's 1024 instead of 256 values. And for 12bit interfaces it's 4096 values. (there are no 10bit panels but many displays accept 12bit and dither them to 10bit)
Hey Panther Fan,
Great point! I stuck to 8-bit panels so that things wouldn't get more complicated. Also there are definitely true 10-bit panels. The ASUS PA32UCG and Apple's Pro Display XDR, for example, both use true 10-bit LCD panels. But you're right that most panels that advertise 10-bit output are just 8-bit panels that use FRC to dither up to 10-bit output.
I don't think I've ever seen a 12-bit display for consumer use.
Thanks for reading and for the feedback!
ZeroOne01: Holdup? Man, it’s been only 7-8 months since they released the first product.
Hey Androole, you're right I made a mistake. I put 15-inches instead of 14-inches, but I was indeed testing the G14. The latest G14, if you go with the 32GB of RAM variant with the QHD screen, is $2,000. This is the variant we're currently testing: https://store.asus.com/us/item/202103AM300000011
The $1,500 model you're referring to has only 16GB of RAM and a 144Hz FullHD screen with only 100% sRGB coverage (instead of 100% DCI-P3), so not nearly as viable for creative work.
Gesture: 40K or 60K. Which is it?
The company spent 60K total to settle the claim, but they won 40K.
FLruckas: "stills meets" should be still meets.
Good catch. We don't always spot the typos in the press releases. Those are mostly copy and paste. Fixed!
Michelob: Flickr announced that they're merging with shutterbug. Maybe the subscription will go towards a Flickr Pro account?
Flickr was acquired by SmugMug, not Shutterbug : )
(unknown member): "Already doing quite a good of grabbing market share" ??
Come on chaps, this is sloppy! How about a bit of proofreading?
Fixed. Sorry about that!
(unknown member): What I've heard is that the journalists weren't even allowed to *look at* the screen, which is rather different from just not being able to take video of it in action. It suggests that perhaps it's not actually all that Red has made it out to be. Time will tell, but for now this "announcement" just seems like a bid to get a little hype bump and keep this phone in people's minds. They haven't actually told us anything new.
Check out the video above. I've not seen any YouTuber or other Journalist say they weren't allowed to look at the screen. In fact, every hands-on I've seen spoke at length about what it was like to use, specifically because they weren't allowed to show it on camera.
That said, I think we're all a bit skeptical ... a holographic display, even from a brand as respected as RED, is a gimmick until proven otherwise.
Ergo607: [quote]Put another way, the 12K by 8K footage above is 48.5 times the resolution of 1080p.[/quote]
Hmm, wouldn't that be 8 times...?
As @whumber points out, we're referring to total pixel count.
12000 x 8000 = ~96MP | 1920 x 1080 = ~2MP | 96/2 = 48
Johannes Zander: 'now dead' liks to page not found.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/8962064161/%20http://www.bokkeh.com/
Fixed! Sorry for the mistake.
rontz: As you seem to like Dustin Dolby that much, you might think about having a look at Alex Koloskov and his product-photography school Photigy as well, as my impression is, that's where Dustin gets his inspiration from.
Hey @rontz, I personally love Alex' work. He's on a totally different level though, teaching high-end product photography using (often) complex lighting setups, etc. Definitely worth featuring all the same, but the reason Dustin's audience is growing so quickly is precisely because he uses so little gear to create near-professional (depending on who you ask, of course) results.
Pritzl: Not sure how embarrassing it is. Bugs happen. If anything, Fuji deserves kudos for how quickly and openly they responded to the issue. I sense a bit of kaizen-envy-schadenfreude going on here.
@EskeRahn Ah, that makes more sense, my apologies for misreading that : )
Pritzl: Not sure how embarrassing it is. Bugs happen. If anything, Fuji deserves kudos for how quickly and openly they responded to the issue. I sense a bit of kaizen-envy-schadenfreude going on here.
@EskeRahn we praised Fuji for releasing such a great update (and are still impressed by them for it), but I fundamentally disagree that they should be praised for doing the *only* appropriate thing and rolling back a flawed update that caused problems : )
Still, I've removed the word "embarrassing" since that's clearly being read as a value judgement, which it wasn't meant to be. Just reporting on the news.
Pritzl: Not sure how embarrassing it is. Bugs happen. If anything, Fuji deserves kudos for how quickly and openly they responded to the issue. I sense a bit of kaizen-envy-schadenfreude going on here.
It wasn't meant to be a value judgement (also... how can a camera site that tests all cameras have brand envy?), just a statement that any time a company releases a flawed product/update it's embarrassing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
dgpfotografia: You meant ~14mm equivalent focal lenght, right?
You're right. Venus Optics advertises the equivalent focal length as "about 13mm", although the exact number is 13.5mm. Typo fixed.
panther fan: Did I miss it or how much is 4k+, like in pixel?
Also now that we have a 50.5inch 3:2 panel can somebody make a digital picture frame out of this, please?
"the exact resolution hasn't been stated" <- from the article. They're just guaranteeing that it'll be over 4K, hence 4K+ : )
ebarak71: An amazing technical achievement showing a very boring view of London.
Lol fair point. But amazing technical achievements are often boring at first : )
panther fan: Why this headline? The image divison had just an 76.2% increase in profit, so all that was driven by other parts of the business.
I mean that is great news for Nikon, but how many on this site are interested in the printer division of Canon or the gaming consol business of Sony? I think I am correct by assuming that most of us only care about the image division of the camera companies
Operating profit for the imaging business this last year was 30 billion yen, that's over half of the entire company's operating profit of 56 billion yen. Sure, the 76% number doesn't look as substantial, but I think it's safe to say that this jump for imaging had a significant impact on overall profit for the company, and that 776% number.
Plus, I see it as a "rising tide raises all boats" scenario. Personally, I'm interested in the other devisions because, the better they do, the more leeway Nikon has to take risks in imaging.