New M6500 Discussion Thread

Double check the type and manufacture of screen, I got a samsung SEC5443 screen,hope they can provide LG rgbled scren.

The factory is in Poland if you place the order in UK.

 

Hi Bokeh,


Good the U2410 was the right choice, but I am a little concerned about the fluorescent glowing red,
how are the Custom settings in the gain controls working out?

You Know that some fluorescent glowing red and green, will not work well with my Autodesk products or Adobe etc...

I am not paying $6000.00+ for cartoons; I will not be a happy camper.

You do have the 17" Wide Screen WUXGA RGBLED LCD Panel right?

And from what I have read the spyder 3 Elite is the way to go,
it has more options to work with now we have to get dialed in for the M6500.

And thank you Bokeh, I have learned a lot about Calibrating my external monitor from you.

 

Hopefully it will be. It has the most potential of any screen.

It seems to me that the rgbled is coming from the factory with the colors and saturation set up like LEDs at the electronics store. The colors are boosted up to being oversaturated and the color temp has too much green and blue (9000K or so). At the electronics store this makes one tv look better than the one beside it, but at the end of the day the color is not true. Most videophiles will calibrate their screen colors and pull the brightness down.

I can see Dell doing this kind of stuff on the XPS 1645. Having cartoon-like colors might sell some laptops in a local store.

The M6500 is in a totally different league. Many of the people that will order it are not the kind of people that will see cartoon-like colors and say ooooohh. In fact, many of us who know what Adobe RGB and sRGB actually are will wonder whats wrong. The marketing jargon that is used on the Alienware 17x rgbled - "Immerse Yourself with the Extreme HD Visual Experience!" - should not apply to the M6500.

I am confident that Dell will fix this. I would be more than happy to talk to any Dell engineer and relay my observations and measurements as well.

 

Actually, the panel is close to 6500K when its in NTSC mode or without Control Point installed. When you switch to sRGB mode is when it gets too blue. I really think there is a mistake in the controlpoint software. The panel is trying to default to approximately 6500K @ 1.8 before anything changes it.

The rgbled panel itself should have the most potential to be the best display. Its just that something is wrong with the implementation. It was either a mistake or someone intentionally turning the colors up to "11".

 

Nope. Not in subscription. Our office doesnt bought the idea yet. I have my own Vue Software and they also offering subscription in the form of "Maitenance". I believe Archicad is also going to the same route.

Anyway, the M6500 is running cool compared to my old precision M4300 and my colleagues M4400. An ID render of 400mm x 215mm print size with 326 lights rendered 13 hours on Precision M4400. It rendered 6 hours only on my M6500. And I dont even hear the fan working hard. compared to the older models.

 

The attached color plot is a view of the 3-dimensional gamut volume of the adobeRGB color space. Represented inside this color space is the 3D gamut volume of the sRGB color space (in gray). The further away from the origin of the plot, the more saturated the colors. Pure green, defined in 8-bit color, is defined with three RGB values, R=0,G=255,B=0. When displayed on a device with a gamut equal to the sRGB color space, this “pure green” will display at a level of saturation indicated by point #1, at the tip of the sRGB plot. It can’t be displayed any more saturated, because that device physically doesn’t have the capability to display more saturated colors.



When this same color, defined as R=0,G=255,R=0 is displayed on a device with a gamut equal to the adobeRGB color space, the saturation will be increased significantly, and “pure green” will display at a level of saturation indicated by point #2, at the tip of the adobeRGB color plot. The “same” color (defined as a simple RGB value) will display differently depending on the gamut of the display device. If your monitor can only display 72% of the adobe color space (equivalent to sRGB), then the greens will be much less saturated. The “typical” laptop monitor can only display 45% of the adobeRGB color space, and is severely lacking in the ability to display true blues or greens. We have grown accustomed to defining “green” in a way that it will be appropriately displayed on an sRGB monitor. When this “same” green is displayed on a monitor capable of displaying the adobeRGB color space, it will be displayed as a much more saturated green.

Color managed applications accommodate for this “inconsistency” by tagging the color with a destination color space. In this case, we could tag “pure green” as R=0,G=225,B=0,sRGB. When this “pure green” is displayed on a device capable of displaying the adobeRGB color space by a color managed application such as Photoshop, the application will apply a color transform to ensure the green is displayed with the same level of saturation as was intended by the destination color space tag. So, in a color managed application, “pure green” tagged as sRGB will display at point #1, consistent with what we are used to seeing on our “legacy” CRT monitors, which were almost all sRGB devices. If you are displaying that same green in an application (or OS desktop) that is not “color managed,” and your display device is capable of displaying the adobeRGB color space, then that green (or red, or blue) will be over saturated. If you are not using a color managed application, the OS doesn’t know what “transform” to apply in order to appropriately display the color, so it will display it at full saturation.

You could of course use the “gain controls” on your monitor to desaturate the colors, and make them consistent with your “old” sRGB monitor. However, this defeats the purpose of having a display capable of displaying adobeRGB, since your “desaturated” monitor will no longer have the physical capability of displaying an accurate “pure green” in the adobeRGB space.

Colors intended for display on a "typical" sRGB monitor will always be displayed with too much saturation on an adobeRGB monitor, unless you are working in a color managed application, or you have limited your display’s capabilities so that it will only be able to display sRGB colors.

 

You could also crank the color saturation (gain controls) on your TV way up until everything looks un-natural, but everyone one would not want to do it.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't quite agree. On the one hand you have the ability to present a color - a screen will either show a color's wavelength or it won't. On the other hand you have color intensity. You don't make sRGB green into aRGB green just by cranking the intensity way up. Its the same color wavelength of green, just now it glowing off the screen.

The goal here should be to show colors as they are in real life. This is true for screens and printers. I think a lot of the distortions with intensity or saturation that we are talking about is caused by the high contrast ratios that rgbled screens are capable of. People may well be looking at their screens with the brightness too high.

Think about it. Its not the color wavelength that your getting at r0 g255 b0, its the intensity. g200 should be the same green as g255, just darker. A wide gamut display will show more pure versions of color. A wide contrast ratio display could show g255 as unnaturally brighter than g200. This is where green goes from natural to glowing.

Tweaking the gain controls does not make the color green come down to sRGB color space levels, it takes the contrast ratio and intensity back down to earth - back to what things really look like - in the real world. 255 level of brightness for 255 levels of color. Instead of g255 = 500 nits of green, you want that brightest green to be around 150 nits of brightness if your printing something, or maybe higher if its just screen colors. Unless your into taking flash photos of people in green and red reflective safety vests - in that case leave those levels boosted all the way up - cause your taking pics of glowy sh*t and you want your monitor to be true to the glow

The gain controls on some monitors are set for the masses to ooh and ahh over when they first see them. Ohh! Look at how intense that red is! Neat! Just like audio where the speaker with the most boom and sizzle will sound best in the demo room in the short term, but is full of distortions. Some people just try for reality in the things they see and the things they hear. All I am changing with the "gain controls" is the number of intensity levels. Remember, we are dealing with 255 levels of each color - and having a monitor displaying 500 levels means that the monitor is distorting the luminance and the saturation of the colors. Ohh look at how intense that red is becomes damn the red is giving me a headache.

I am going to look back through your post. There is good info there. I just have to see what the difference between Nikon sRGB 4.0.0.3001 and regular sRGB is - if there is even a difference.

Also, just to be clear, I was not tweaking my "gain controls" to turn my monitor into an sRGB display. I was measuring and tweaking the display to play a key role in a color managed workflow. It still has better color than my sRGB display. Most importantly, the colors I get on professional prints are exactly how they look on the screen. Adobe Lightroom uses ProPhoto as its default color space which is much wider than even Adobe RGB. With the default glowiness on the U2410, I had distorted colors on the monitor that meant I had color shifts on prints.

Almost forgot - just because these are the things that work for me, they may not work for everyone. What I see as well reasoned could be read by others as horse sh*t. I highly recommend working hard or tinkering with the things you see as important. I see taking pictures, having a great environment for editing them, and getting great prints as important - so I work at it and tinker around. Maybe I am just lucky with my results, but I am just pompass enough to think I worked to get a good workflow in place

 

Lets look at it this way. The WUXGA screen and the RGBLED screen both have a brightness of 300nits and a contrast ratio of 500:1. Where they differ is in the available saturation. The wider gamut of adobe RGB encompasses more saturated colors. This is independent of the brightness or contrast ratio. To see what I'm talking about, pull an image (preferably one tagged with adobeRGB color space) into Photoshop and then use "soft proof" to view that image in a smaller color space. It is the saturation of the image that changes, i.e., less intense colors. More saturation = more "intense" colors. By the way, a pure color can't have "contrast." Contrast is the comparison of two or more luminance values. If you turn down the brightness of your screen, is the color still too "intense"? If so, then it isn't due to the brightness, or the contrast, it's due to the saturation.

Nikon sRGB is, for all practical purposes, the same as sRGB. There is a tiny, tiny difference if you compare color plots, but those differences are insignificant.

 

how do i check for this (it is in the monitor section within device manager ?)

 

Makes a lot of sense. I will play around with converting some 14 bit camera RAW files into aRGB and ProPhoto to see if I can find differences.

I also agree with you on the brightness issue. When I pull the brightness down to "old school" editing levels of 80-120 nits, the glow goes away.

Still though, its tough to defend Dell's color temps and gamma in their preset sRGB and aRGB settings in Control Point.