1 billion colours!

Son_of_Thor

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,106
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been looking at monitors. At present, I use a Dell U2414H and it's excellent. I'm thinking of keeping this and adding a second 27" Dell Ultrasharp monitor so I can use the 24" in portrait orientation and 27" in landscape orientation.

I suspect I'll need to go for a discrete graphics card to run 2 monitors over DisplayPort. Is it worth buying a monitor that supports 30 bit colour, or should I stick to 24 bit monitors and try to go for higher resolution instead? I appreciate I'll need an ATI/nVidia workstation card for 30 bit..

At the moment I don't calibrate the screen - that's something to take more of a look into at the Photography Show at the weekend!
 
8 bits per channel vs 10 bits is more about banding than the total number of available colours.

Certainly, on a bright screen, 8 bits can show bad banding.
 
It did seem 10 bit per channel was going to be more about reducing banding in skies, etc. than about number of colours. Anyone on here running a 10/30bit setup? Is there any real-life benefit to this or should I save my money?
 
did seem 10 bit per channel was going to be more about reducing banding in skies,
Banding in skies is usually a jpg compression issue. I've never seen sky banding in a RAW file.
 
Banding in skies is usually a jpg compression issue. I've never seen sky banding in a RAW file.

Interesting, I remember seeing it in a few of my images, but they could well have been exported jpeg's - I'll have a look
 
If you've been getting by without calibrating your screen. I should think you'll be fine with a cheaper monitor.

I just bought two new monitors, and went for 'standard gamut' sRGB panels. The huge majority of my work is just for web use, so I didn't see any real need to spend extra on a wide gamut panel.
 
A perfect edit on an 8/24 set up will look perfect on an 10/30 set up. A perfect edit on an 10/30 set up could very well render issues such as your banding more prominently on a viewer with an 8/24. If you want your work to be as near as perfect as possible over all display avenues then I'd save the money and just work a little harder to avoid your banding issues. You eyes will be hard pushed to see beyond 16.7m colours anyway.
 
Banding in skies is usually a jpg compression issue. I've never seen sky banding in a RAW file.

Fundamentally, it's not a compression issue, it's a bit depth issue, your RAW file is 10+ bits per channel, JPEG is 8.

If you increase the contrast of the screen (the luminance level of the white point), then banding becomes more and more apparent. This is why the newer UHDTVs are 10 bit panels.
 
Thanks for all the replies folks - Looks like being a member of the forum might actually save me some money for a change rather than costing me a fortune!! :banana:
 
Look under the desk Dave,

I've found a few hot pixels there melted into the carpet.

I think they are seeping out around the monitor bezel. All joking aside, it does seem strange shooting raw in 12 or 14 bit and then editing/outputting in 8 bit
 
I think they are seeping out around the monitor bezel. All joking aside, it does seem strange shooting raw in 12 or 14 bit and then editing/outputting in 8 bit

Not really as you're far less likely to get banding in your skies or anywhere else with very subtle gradation

That said, most of the time you could just shoot in jpeg and you'd be fine, I know of a few VERY expensive Wedding togs that do that

Dave
 
I think they are seeping out around the monitor bezel. All joking aside, it does seem strange shooting raw in 12 or 14 bit and then editing/outputting in 8 bit
Raw files are linear, sRGB have gamma applied.

The gamma curve better matches human vision and makes better use of the available codes.
 
Well, in the end I opted for calibration for now. I can always buy a second monitor later.. Bought an X-rite i1 Display Pro to share with a friend which has really helped! I can see what all the fuss is about now :)
 
Back
Top