I agree with everything you say - and yet the extra stop really makes a
difference when one looks at these displays. I mean *really*.
It's pretty obvious high DR and wide-gamut are coming and we're gonna have
to invent new ways of mapping input-referred data onto them.
CMYK was nice, but it may be time for color geeks to admit that there is a
new world out there, and that displays are no longer print preview devices.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 16, 2016, at 4:44 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't know sh*t about the software side of things, but I've looked atsome HDR monitors running custom programming in my local mall shop, and the
results are well worth it. This is not a fad like 3D, it is a genuine
consumer tech update.
A complete rewrite of the operating system and graphics formats and image
manipulation software will be required to support something like that.
With some notable exceptions in the video and animation industries,
everything on computers assumes and is designed to mimic non-fluorescent
reflective print media. The brightest anything can get is paper white.
Anything brighter -- such as specular reflections, fluorescence, an actual
light source, or whatever -- is explicitly clipped to paper white.
This was quite sensible back in the days of the original Apple LaserWriter
to which all modern graphics systems (with the noted exceptions) trace
their heritage. And it hasn't been all that much of a limitation so long as
we were working with monitors whose brightness maxed out at roughly ambient
But it _is_ a problem if you want to capture a scene with a wide dynamic
range, and it's _especially_ a problem if you want to actually reproduce
such a scene.
...but less of a problem than you might think. You see, of necessity,
accurately reproducing a scene with lots of dynamic range...well, it means
you've actually got to have a display that's just as bright as the
original. And that's not comfortable. Do you _really_ want to have
too-bright-to-look-at specular reflections coming off your monitor? Or to
have the picture of the salt flats at noon be as glaring as the real thing?
In practice, what people are interested in is compressing dynamic
range...and that's _always_ going to be at least as much art as science.
Because it means you're going to have to throw away parts of the image's
dynamic range in order to compress it down to fit the output medium...and
which parts are you most willing to sacrifice?
Note that there're similar concerns with wide color gamuts. And even
bigger concerns if you're going to be making prints, which many of us still