4 ms·

If you're doing photo/video editing for web, sRGB is your target anyway. This is a $530 laptop btw. Which 10 year old laptop had 96% Adobe RGB coverage, out of

by phonon 6y ago

If you're doing photo/video editing for web, sRGB is your target anyway. This is a $530 laptop btw. Which 10 year old laptop had 96% Adobe RGB coverage, out of curiosity?

bscphil 6y ago
My screen is the AUO B173HW01 v4, which was shipped with several laptops from that era. The spec [1] was actually finalized in 2009 and that's when my EDID information says the display was manufactured, so "10 years old" was actually a bit conservative it seems. The spec says it's supposed to have 90% NTSC coverage. I've had it calibrated with a colorimeter, which tells me it has the following properties: * 89.0% DCI-P3 coverage * 97.8% AdobeRGB coverage Here's the graph of its gamut vs sRGB.[2] I edit a lot of photos (though never professionally), and honestly I would never edit on an sRGB screen. Plus, what about HDR video? It's becoming extremely common these days. [1] http://www.yslcd.com.tw/docs/product/B173HW01%20V.4.pdf http://www.yslcd.com.tw/docs/product/B173HW01%20V.4.pdf [2] https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/Qmaq6553VxMazANuLiFh95aW6fAJBRkAKE9pj5iMd3ZyPJ https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/Qmaq6553VxMazANuLiFh95aW6fA...
- phonon 6y ago
  That's a 6-bit TN panel, with a decent gamut. Color accuracy will be so-so, most likely. (What's your delta-E?) Viewing angles are not great either. [1] An 8-bit IPS panel with 100% sRGB would likely be superior for most purposes. It's also a 17.3" screen vs. 13" which was what was being discussed. I did the photography and color grading for a published coffee table book on a monitor with less than 97% AdobeRGB. I would have liked a better monitor, but it worked out....Lightroom and Photoshop have nice tools to help. If you're doing HDR video editing, get an HDR display. If you're doing professional video/picture editing, get one with a wide-gamut and good color accuracy. For most people, 100% sRGB will be pleasing and accurate for most purposes. [1] http://www.panelook.com/B173HW01%20V4_AUO_17.3_LCM_overview_738.html http://www.panelook.com/B173HW01%20V4_AUO_17.3_LCM_overview_...
  - bscphil 6y ago
    > That's a 6-bit TN panel, with a decent gamut. Color accuracy will be so-so, most likely. For sure, I grant that there are much much better panels these days. I would get something better if I was purchasing it today. But I would find it difficult to give up the wide gamut with all the work I do with photos (personal and travel photos). The profile says the white point ΔE 2000 to daylight locus is 21.86. I don't understand exactly what this is, but I know it isn't very good. The viewing angles are indeed quite bad, though actually a bit better than most other TN panels I saw during that era. My point wasn't that this was the best screen you could get, even at the time, just that an sRGB screen isn't impressive at all - Apple's MacBooks hit 100% sRGB in 2014 at the latest, going by one I profiled with my colorimeter. MacBook Pros have been at ~100% Display-P3 for years now, and HP has a laptop at 100% DCI-P3. > For most people, 100% sRGB will be pleasing and accurate for most purposes. I just don't know that this is true. HDR video is becoming a bigger and bigger thing. Image codecs that support 10 bit+ color depth are becoming widespread; the iPhone takes photos with HEIC by default. I assume that eventually consumers are going to want to be able to view movies in HDR on their laptops, if we aren't there already.
    - phonon 6y ago
      ΔE 21.86 isn't just "not very good", it's unusable for color work. (I would call it "shit-tier", in your parlance). Why did you even use a colorimeter and not calibrate? Sorry to say, that's a much bigger issue than being able to show more intense greens. You're just wrong. Someone asking for a "good screen" should be entirely satisfied with a screen with 100% sRGB gamut, a good ΔE (<3) and off-axis viewing angles, much more so than just a screen with a larger gamut. (And yes, sure go get a laptop with 100% DCI-P3, HDR 600, etc. I'll wait...)

by phonon 6y ago

If you're doing photo/video editing for web, sRGB is your target anyway. This is a $530 laptop btw. Which 10 year old laptop had 96% Adobe RGB coverage, out of curiosity?

bscphil 6y ago

My screen is the AUO B173HW01 v4, which was shipped with several laptops from that era. The spec [1] was actually finalized in 2009 and that's when my EDID information says the display was manufactured, so "10 years old" was actually a bit conservative it seems. The spec says it's supposed to have 90% NTSC coverage. I've had it calibrated with a colorimeter, which tells me it has the following properties: * 89.0% DCI-P3 coverage * 97.8% AdobeRGB coverage Here's the graph of its gamut vs sRGB.[2] I edit a lot of photos (though never professionally), and honestly I would never edit on an sRGB screen. Plus, what about HDR video? It's becoming extremely common these days. [1] http://www.yslcd.com.tw/docs/product/B173HW01%20V.4.pdf http://www.yslcd.com.tw/docs/product/B173HW01%20V.4.pdf [2] https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/Qmaq6553VxMazANuLiFh95aW6fAJBRkAKE9pj5iMd3ZyPJ https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/Qmaq6553VxMazANuLiFh95aW6fA...

phonon 6y ago
That's a 6-bit TN panel, with a decent gamut. Color accuracy will be so-so, most likely. (What's your delta-E?) Viewing angles are not great either. [1] An 8-bit IPS panel with 100% sRGB would likely be superior for most purposes. It's also a 17.3" screen vs. 13" which was what was being discussed. I did the photography and color grading for a published coffee table book on a monitor with less than 97% AdobeRGB. I would have liked a better monitor, but it worked out....Lightroom and Photoshop have nice tools to help. If you're doing HDR video editing, get an HDR display. If you're doing professional video/picture editing, get one with a wide-gamut and good color accuracy. For most people, 100% sRGB will be pleasing and accurate for most purposes. [1] http://www.panelook.com/B173HW01%20V4_AUO_17.3_LCM_overview_738.html http://www.panelook.com/B173HW01%20V4_AUO_17.3_LCM_overview_...
- bscphil 6y ago
  > That's a 6-bit TN panel, with a decent gamut. Color accuracy will be so-so, most likely. For sure, I grant that there are much much better panels these days. I would get something better if I was purchasing it today. But I would find it difficult to give up the wide gamut with all the work I do with photos (personal and travel photos). The profile says the white point ΔE 2000 to daylight locus is 21.86. I don't understand exactly what this is, but I know it isn't very good. The viewing angles are indeed quite bad, though actually a bit better than most other TN panels I saw during that era. My point wasn't that this was the best screen you could get, even at the time, just that an sRGB screen isn't impressive at all - Apple's MacBooks hit 100% sRGB in 2014 at the latest, going by one I profiled with my colorimeter. MacBook Pros have been at ~100% Display-P3 for years now, and HP has a laptop at 100% DCI-P3. > For most people, 100% sRGB will be pleasing and accurate for most purposes. I just don't know that this is true. HDR video is becoming a bigger and bigger thing. Image codecs that support 10 bit+ color depth are becoming widespread; the iPhone takes photos with HEIC by default. I assume that eventually consumers are going to want to be able to view movies in HDR on their laptops, if we aren't there already.
  - phonon 6y ago
    ΔE 21.86 isn't just "not very good", it's unusable for color work. (I would call it "shit-tier", in your parlance). Why did you even use a colorimeter and not calibrate? Sorry to say, that's a much bigger issue than being able to show more intense greens. You're just wrong. Someone asking for a "good screen" should be entirely satisfied with a screen with 100% sRGB gamut, a good ΔE (<3) and off-axis viewing angles, much more so than just a screen with a larger gamut. (And yes, sure go get a laptop with 100% DCI-P3, HDR 600, etc. I'll wait...)