Realistic colors for monitors ?

Discussion in 'Asus' started by Skybuck Flying, Apr 12, 2010.

  1. Hello,

    The RGB color space does not contain/display all colors we humans see in
    reality...

    In reality we humans see more colors in real-life than our monitors can
    display.

    I was wondering if nvidia is researching graphics cards and/or monitor which
    try to display "realistic colors" ?!?

    If not it would seem to me that "they" have the most to gain from such
    technology and should therefore research/develop it ?!?! ;) :)

    Might be the next big thing or maybe not...

    I do wonder what "changes" would be needed to the current system...

    How many bits would be necessary to display all colors ? Would it still be
    an RGB system or would it need something else ? ;)

    I can vagely remember one company investigating such technology and working
    together with some animation studio... like pixar ? or industrial light and
    magic ?

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Apr 12, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Norman Peelman" <> wrote in message
    news:4bc28573$0$4944$...
    > Skybuck Flying wrote:
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> The RGB color space does not contain/display all colors we humans see in
    >> reality...
    >>
    >> In reality we humans see more colors in real-life than our monitors can
    >> display.
    >>
    >> I was wondering if nvidia is researching graphics cards and/or monitor
    >> which try to display "realistic colors" ?!?
    >>
    >> If not it would seem to me that "they" have the most to gain from such
    >> technology and should therefore research/develop it ?!?! ;) :)
    >>
    >> Might be the next big thing or maybe not...
    >>
    >> I do wonder what "changes" would be needed to the current system...
    >>
    >> How many bits would be necessary to display all colors ? Would it still
    >> be an RGB system or would it need something else ? ;)
    >>
    >> I can vagely remember one company investigating such technology and
    >> working together with some animation studio... like pixar ? or industrial
    >> light and magic ?
    >>
    >> Bye,
    >> Skybuck.

    >
    > In reality our monitors can output more colors than our eyes can
    > process.


    Maybe it's not about "number of colors" but the "color range" itself.

    Like deep black, and very white.

    And very red and very blue, and very pink, very orange and so forth.

    Monitors seem to be limited to a certain color range.

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Apr 12, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Skybuck Flying wrote:

    > I was wondering if nvidia is researching graphics cards and/or monitor which
    > try to display "realistic colors" ?!?


    For that you would need monitors with an infinite number of primaries.
    As (most) monitors and the color system of the computer-monitor
    connection (say VGA and DVI) are based on three primaries, all colors
    that can be reproduced by a monitor are contained in a triangle in the
    xy color space whose edges are given by the (phyiscal) colors of the
    monitor (inside the full gammut). However, the gammut of visible colors
    in this space is certainly *not* triangular, thus necessarily colors are
    missing.

    It is not a matter of the monitor or the graphics card, but the whole
    system to signal colors.

    > How many bits would be necessary to display all colors ? Would it still be
    > an RGB system or would it need something else ? ;)


    Not a matter of bit-count (alone). The bit-count only defines the
    precision by which colors can be represented, not the size of the gammut.

    > I can vagely remember one company investigating such technology and working
    > together with some animation studio... like pixar ? or industrial light and
    > magic ?


    OpenEXR, by ILM. But this is on high-dynamic range images, i.e.
    representing several magnitudes of luminance. But it is still based on
    three primaries, and so are (most) capture devices and (most) display
    devices. IIRC, the primaries can be specified, thus it is possible to
    describe "virtual" colors outside of the visible gammut and thus
    describe all visible colors. However, since the monitor and the
    monitor-computer link is constrained to "physical" colors, that itself
    doesn't buy you much; it is a win for processing images - i.e. in the
    image or movie processing toolchain, because coding loss can be avoided.
    This is what it has been designed for.

    Greetings,
    Thomas
     
    Thomas Richter, Apr 12, 2010
    #3
  4. "Thomas Richter" <-berlin.de> wrote in message
    news:hpv38l$ei3$-stuttgart.de...
    > Skybuck Flying wrote:
    >
    >> I was wondering if nvidia is researching graphics cards and/or monitor
    >> which try to display "realistic colors" ?!?

    >
    > For that you would need monitors with an infinite number of primaries. As
    > (most) monitors and the color system of the computer-monitor connection
    > (say VGA and DVI) are based on three primaries, all colors that can be
    > reproduced by a monitor are contained in a triangle in the xy color space
    > whose edges are given by the (phyiscal) colors of the monitor (inside the
    > full gammut). However, the gammut of visible colors in this space is
    > certainly *not* triangular, thus necessarily colors are missing.


    I have seen drawings trying to explain it... the "true" gammut seems a bit
    wobbly...

    Maybe a (cubic?) spline system is needed... where the coordinates form some
    kind of spline to specify the resulting color...

    Would that help ? ;)

    Bye,
    Skybuck ;) :)
     
    Skybuck Flying, Apr 12, 2010
    #4
  5. Skybuck Flying

    MitchAlsup Guest

    On Apr 11, 6:53 pm, "Skybuck Flying" <>
    wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > The RGB color space does not contain/display all colors we humans see in
    > reality...
    >
    > In reality we humans see more colors in real-life than our monitors can
    > display.
    >
    > I do wonder what "changes" would be needed to the current system...


    What you need is a monitor with 6 colors {R,G,B and Y,V,T--yellow,
    violet, teal}
    This is in effect what the high gammut printers do.

    In addition, it is possible that a change from 8-bit A/Ds behing the
    electron guns the use of 10-bit A/Ds would help in the sensitivity of
    rendering department.

    But no monitor will ever be able to produce the "look" of green
    foliage being illuminated by sunlight from behind--the dynamic range
    the eye can see is simply larger than the dynamic range that the
    displaies can muster.

    Mitch
     
    MitchAlsup, Apr 12, 2010
    #5
  6. On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:21:38 +0200, Thomas Richter
    <-berlin.de> wrote:

    >Skybuck Flying wrote:
    >
    >> I was wondering if nvidia is researching graphics cards and/or monitor which
    >> try to display "realistic colors" ?!?

    >
    >For that you would need monitors with an infinite number of primaries.
    >As (most) monitors and the color system of the computer-monitor
    >connection (say VGA and DVI) are based on three primaries, all colors
    >that can be reproduced by a monitor are contained in a triangle in the
    >xy color space whose edges are given by the (phyiscal) colors of the
    >monitor (inside the full gammut).


    Using readily available high efficiency CRT phosphors, the gamut is
    quite limited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB_color_space which is
    used on many computer monitors and HDTV displays. The current SDTV
    primaries do not differ much from these.

    The original (1953) NTSC primaries had the green point much closer to
    the top of the gamut, thus capable of producing deeper greens.
    Unfortunately, the available phosphors had a low efficiency, thus,
    producing dim pictures.

    >However, the gammut of visible colors
    >in this space is certainly *not* triangular, thus necessarily colors are
    >missing.
    >
    >It is not a matter of the monitor or the graphics card, but the whole
    >system to signal colors.
    >
    >> How many bits would be necessary to display all colors ? Would it still be
    >> an RGB system or would it need something else ? ;)

    >
    >Not a matter of bit-count (alone). The bit-count only defines the
    >precision by which colors can be represented, not the size of the gammut.
    >
    >> I can vagely remember one company investigating such technology and working
    >> together with some animation studio... like pixar ? or industrial light and
    >> magic ?

    >
    >OpenEXR, by ILM. But this is on high-dynamic range images, i.e.
    >representing several magnitudes of luminance. But it is still based on
    >three primaries, and so are (most) capture devices and (most) display
    >devices. IIRC, the primaries can be specified, thus it is possible to
    >describe "virtual" colors outside of the visible gammut and thus
    >describe all visible colors.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_color

    A much more radical color space is at
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CIE1931_rgxy.png which would be OK
    for a transmission and production standard, but would cause a lot of
    problems displaying it.

    >However, since the monitor and the
    >monitor-computer link is constrained to "physical" colors, that itself
    >doesn't buy you much; it is a win for processing images - i.e. in the
    >image or movie processing toolchain, because coding loss can be avoided.
    >This is what it has been designed for.



    The http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CIExy1931_CIERGB.png could
    be quite good if monochromatic emitters at 700, 545 and 380 nm would
    be available. Wouldn't adding a fourth emitter at 515-520 nm cover the
    whole gamut ?

    While in the past it has been necessary to specify the update rate,
    spatial resolution, gamma and color space according to the available
    display technology (CRT), does it make any sense to design new image
    processing, storage and distribution standards according to some
    obsolete display standards, when most likely, the display technology
    will change every few years ?
     
    Paul Keinanen, Apr 12, 2010
    #6
  7. Skybuck Flying

    Copacetic Guest

    On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:46:26 +0300, Paul Keinanen <>
    wrote:

    >The http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CIExy1931_CIERGB.png could
    >be quite good if monochromatic emitters at 700, 545 and 380 nm would
    >be available. Wouldn't adding a fourth emitter at 515-520 nm cover the
    >whole gamut ?



    Since they are illuminated pixels, what are the prospects for OLED being
    the leader in visual gamut coverage?
     
    Copacetic, Apr 12, 2010
    #7
  8. In <4bc28573$0$4944$>, Norman Peelman wrote:
    >Skybuck Flying wrote:
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> The RGB color space does not contain/display all colors we humans see in
    >> reality...
    >>
    >> In reality we humans see more colors in real-life than our monitors can
    >> display.
    >>
    >> I was wondering if nvidia is researching graphics cards and/or monitor which
    >> try to display "realistic colors" ?!?
    >>
    >> If not it would seem to me that "they" have the most to gain from such
    >> technology and should therefore research/develop it ?!?! ;) :)
    >>
    >> Might be the next big thing or maybe not...
    >>
    >> I do wonder what "changes" would be needed to the current system...
    >>
    >> How many bits would be necessary to display all colors ? Would it still be
    >> an RGB system or would it need something else ? ;)
    >>
    >> I can vagely remember one company investigating such technology and working
    >> together with some animation studio... like pixar ? or industrial light and
    >> magic ?

    >
    > In reality our monitors can output more colors than our eyes can process.


    However, usual monitors cannot output some of the colors that human
    vision can process, including some that are common to see in real life,
    such as:

    * LEDs of a more pure red shade, such as most having nominal peak
    wavelength of 660 nm. Their "dominant wavelength" (which is a color
    specification largely meaning "hue") is usually around 640 or in the 640's
    of nm.

    * Other more-pure reds, such as common red diode lasers (usually in or
    near the 645-650 nm range), He-Ne lasers (632.8 nm), and incandescent red
    traffic signals (dominant wavelength is often close to 635 nm). Or any
    incandescent or daylight light source (or any of most xenon light sources)
    filtered by a #29 or #92 Wratten filter or Schott or similar longpass
    glass filters with cutoff wavelength (50% point) 620-665 nm, or other
    similar deep red longpass filters.

    * Deeper non-yellowish and less-yellowish greens, and deeper bluish
    greens, such as 532.8 nm green lasers, and most InGaN green LEDs including
    most LED green traffic signals. And especially an InGaN green or
    blue-green LED with dominant wavelength anywhere from 490 to 535 nm, after
    being filtered by common deep green acrylic sheet such as green
    "plexiglas".

    * Some deep blue light sources, such as most common turquisish blue InGaN
    LEDs with dominant wavelength 470-475 nm, 473 nm DPSS lasers, or almost
    any InGaN blue LED filtered by almost any deep blue filter.

    * Deep violetish-blue light sources, such as a "BLB" blacklight fluorescent
    lamp, a mercury vapor lamp filtered by a deep blue filter such as Wratten
    47B or a deep blue dichroic filter, many "royal blue" LEDs especially if
    filtered by a deep blue filter, a violet or UV LED whose visible content
    is passed through a deep blue filter, a Cree "standard blue" LED filtered
    by a deep blue filter, or a He-Cd laser.

    * Deep violets and purples, such as combined output of a "royal blue" LED
    and output of a red one whose peak wavelength is 660 nm.

    * Most CRT monitors do not show truly deep greens, yellows, oranges or
    reds of any hue, since the red and green phosphors in those are only
    something like around 95% saturated (much less still for green according
    to the 1931 CIE chromaticity diagram, but I think largely because the
    green area is "distended" in that one.)

    - Don Klipstein ()
     
    Don Klipstein, Apr 13, 2010
    #8
  9. Skybuck Flying

    Miles Bader Guest

    Paul Keinanen <> writes:
    > While in the past it has been necessary to specify the update rate,
    > spatial resolution, gamma and color space according to the available
    > display technology (CRT), does it make any sense to design new image
    > processing, storage and distribution standards according to some
    > obsolete display standards, when most likely, the display technology
    > will change every few years ?


    OpenEXR, at least, seems more than flexible enough to handle future changes:

    + In dynamic range and precision, of course, it far exceeds available
    display technology (using the default 16-bit floating-point channel
    representation; for crazy applications where that's not enough, it
    _also_ allows other representations like 32-bit floating-point, etc...)

    + It allows an arbitrary number of channels to be encoded

    + For the "standard" set of RGB channels, it has a way of specifying the
    chromaticities of the primaries (and has explicitly defined defaults)

    [I wish more software would support openexr well; if you can handle the
    increased size of image files -- it's probably the best image format
    around.]

    -miles

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not
    using enough of it.
     
    Miles Bader, Aug 26, 2010
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    413
    Quaoar
    Apr 12, 2005
  2. Mark Valery

    Realistic aspect ratio for monitors

    Mark Valery, Feb 27, 2004, in forum: Sun Hardware
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    299
    Raymond Toy
    Feb 27, 2004
  3. John McGaw
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,683
    John McGaw
    Jan 24, 2009
  4. John McGaw
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    922
    John McGaw
    Jan 27, 2009
  5. Skybuck Flying

    Realistic colors for monitors ?

    Skybuck Flying, Apr 12, 2010, in forum: Nvidia
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    552
    Miles Bader
    Aug 26, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page