Slashdot Mirror
HP Introduces First-Ever 30-bit, 1 Billion Color Display
justechn writes "I recently had the opportunity to see, first hand, HP's new 30-bit, 1 billion color LCD display. I have to say I am impressed. Not only is the HP Dreamcolor LP2480zx capable of displaying so much more than standard LCDs, but it considered a Color Critical display. This means if you work with videos or photos you can be guaranteed that what you see is what it is supposed to look like. With 6 built-in color spaces (NTSC, SMPTE, sRGB, Rec. 709, Adobe RGB and DCI), you can easily switch to the one that best suits your applications and process. At $3,499, it is too expensive to be a consumer level LCD, but compared to other Color Critical displays (which can cost as much as $15,000 and $25,000) this is a real bargain. This display was a joint venture between HP and DreamWorks animation. When I talked to the executives of DreamWorks, they were very excited about this display because it solved a huge problem for them."
I WANT IT. I don't really know why, though...
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
It might be better to avoid stories from people (justechn, roland p, etc) that just link to their websites. Especially those that require registration.
Slashdot should not be giving these guys (and their like) the free publicity that they figure they deserve.
Did they determine those specs using the same calculations Mac used.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
HP's new 30-bit, 1 billion color LCD display.
Or, put another way, yet another display that can show about 999 million more colors than most people can tell apart (or in my case, 999,999,000, aka "six-nines of wasted color").
With 6 built-in color spaces [...snip...] you can easily switch to the one that best suits your applications and process.
Translation - Users will always pick the wrong one, "guaranteeing" that they never see the right thing.
They make it sound like out-of-the-box you're going to get the best image possible. But that's not the case. The color profile for the monitor needs to be adjusted to match reality (using something like ColorVision's Spyder2)before you can make that claim. There's no point in having billions of colors if they're all wrong.
It's not the 1B colors that matter, but the gamut. Do you agree there are colors that most monitors can't show but do exist in real life? Think of neon greens, bright magentas, etc. This monitor, covering the Adobe RGB gamut, displays colors other monitors simply can't. That may not matter to you, but it does to photographers.
Umm, how?
Print reflects light, montors emit light. You can get close-ish, but that's about it.
All in all, if you still want acurate color, you'll still need to do a print/press check.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
1) Open photoshop.
2) Make a gradient from 0-0-0 RGB to 255-0-0 RGB. This covers every possible variation of the red channel in a 16.7 million color space. Draw the gradient across your whole screen.
3) Look at the color banding and say, "Oh, I guess I can see why 30 bit color would be noticeable."
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Exactly! People who work in color managed work flows need exact color representation and will want this. We need to know that what we see is what will be in a publication.
I would say the entry price is a bit steep, except that pro photographers will spend twice as much on a camera body alone. They will keep that camera body for less time than they will keep this monitor.
True. But stick most people watching American Idol in front of a 52" screen and they'll be too enthralled by the size and brightness to notice the image/video quality. If they're willing to put up with that kind of programming, you can't expect them to be overly picky about AV quality. It's not called the idiot box for nothing, even if it would be more aptly named the idiot panel these days.
Remember - "bigger is better" for most people. I can hardly watch typical HDTV due to how hard they stomp on the video for compression, as the macro blocking is too distracting to me (web content tends to be better, as most web producers actually CARE about that kind of thing). At least SDTV tends to be too soft of a picture to have bad macro blocking, and they don't need to compress it has hard in the first place to send it down the tubes.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Lies.
Men and women's perceptions of color (and smell) are typically just as good. The problem is we're specialized in WHAT smells/colors/sounds/etc we pick up.
You typically see an article on MSN/Yahoo/etc about once a year on amazing new research showing that men can't see color as well as women, thus explaining why men suck at color coordination.
The tendency for men to have more rods than women but less cones (or vice versa I forget) is a tendency, and not a hard and fast rule. Men typically have better "vision" in terms of luminosity, while women have better "vision" in terms of chroma.
Much of what our eyes take in is filtered/dumped/preprocessed before it travels down the optic nerve.
The military used to (and probably still does) seek out color blind people to look at aerial photographs because their brains had learned to deal with visual input differently, and they were able to see camouflaged bases/vehicles/etc more easily than normal-sighted people.
On the flip side, women who can see four colors (tetramats) have a wider range in terms of color, but probably have less accuracy.
Someone working in a field where super accurate color information is required is likely to learn to process that information. (Assuming a healthy pair of eyes). Mechanics learn to smell certain things, wine snobs train their tongues, and audiophiles are a bunch of braying jackasses who spend way too much on cables.