92% Gamut Hype?

[ato]

I'm no expert, but this what I have experienced myself and read to be true, so thanks.



I'm talking about all material from games to movies. Everything looks better in widegamut. But, this is according to my taste and what I feel look better. Its hard to reproduce the same effect on a sRGB monitor. One can argue that the colors would seem more oversaturated, but since the whole image will be converted to aRGB upon viewing, the original sRGB material seems undersaturated if to do a side by side comparison with 2 screens.

most high-end LCD have sRGB mode,my eizo CG 22" have sRGB mode and emu mode to emulat other color gamut under aRGB

 

[ato]

No, basically, if you get a 92% gamut monitor, all material outside of coloraware application will use the full 92% gamut. Green would look greener, red more red and blue more blue (in addition to deeper cyan, yellow and magneta)

yes/no....if your photo/color is sRGB and using a non-colormanagment software ,the color already wrong

 

[XeeN]

To add my 2 cents, I'm a graphic designer and 90% of my work goes to print for my clients. I worked for 3 years on a color calibrated Apple LCD at work, and had a Mitsubishi 2070SB-BK (aka NEC 2141SB) at home.

I now have a 24" LG 245WP-BN (aka 246WP-BN). I was very concerned about color differences so I left my CRT on the desk besides my 24" to do some color comparisons because it would be VERY BAD if I made a brochure with certain colors, and the blues came out purple, or greens came out yellow, or whatever, when the brochure goes to print.

However after doing some testing and also looking at the final product next to my LCD, I can tell slight changes in the color spectrum that differ from my LCD, but honestly the main issue I've run up against is that my LCD will display brighter and more vibrant colors because of how it works.

Let me just summarize rather than rambling for a while: my LCD has a 72% gamut with 8 bit pixel color. I am going to use this for design. So far it has worked great and the color difference between this an my CRT is actually small enough that I'm not worried about the discrepencies. I also don't have $100,000 contracts on my desk. When I do, I'll have an array of color-calibrated displays. For now, this is what I can afford and I think it works great for me and my clients.

I was very worried about the gamut issues but after some research this is the display I want since I also want to have good day-to-day and gaming use on it. If I only did design on a monitor, I'd probably go with an Apple 30" and would color-calibrate it since I've seen those things display great color when calibrated. However, since I can't afford one I'm going with what I have and it's wonderful.

Anyways, all my print projects are signed off after a full CMYK printed-proof is made at the printer, so the final colors almost always differ slightly in brightness and everything, and the client has to sign off on that or ask for a tweak. Everything they've seen up to that point has been on their monitors which are just consumer-end and not color calibrated, but are close enough.

72% is enough for me, for now. When I roll in more clients with larger bankrolls, I'll probably invest in a display costing 2-3x as much as the one I have right now because I'll be able to afford it. Until then, this is great.

 

[Luthorcrow]

I'm talking about all material from games to movies. Everything looks better in widegamut. But, this is according to my taste and what I feel look better. Its hard to reproduce the same effect on a sRGB monitor. One can argue that the colors would seem more oversaturated, but since the whole image will be converted to aRGB upon viewing, the original sRGB material seems undersaturated if to do a side by side comparison with 2 screens.

Sorry, that was one of my misstatements which Rembrandt called me on in the next post. After reading his reply I went back and did my test again. I am not sure what I did wrong the first time but I went and viewed a sRGB scanned image that I created in sRGB and aRGB both in PS CS2 and ACD Pro and there was no difference. So let me recap my position so I can clean up my mistakes.

1) I can see no negative impact for wider gamut on content.

2) I also see no positive impact outside of content designed for a wider gamut (for the purposes of my test that was an aRGB scan).

3) Wider gamut content outside of HDTV is almost none existent. There is almost no PC native content that is not sRGB (web, images, games, etc) outside of fine print photography, PS and some other special applications.

4) The main push for this feature is HDTV content (Xbox360, Blueray, etc). Most HDTV appears to still be sRGB but whether this applies to Bleuray, Xbox360, P3, I have no idea.

So in the end it does appear to have a benefit just not what most users think it. For the average user the only reason to have it is to future proof your HDTV content or to be sure you are not missing anything. In my view the companies are advertising this feature in a deceptive manner simply because they are selling the feature with the impression that it will improve image quality for all images. I realize it is a lie by omission but still a lie.

Maybe people who don't notice much difference, have calibrated their monitors to such a degree????

No its just that there is no difference to see.

Reminds me a of a Red Dwarf episode

Kryten: Do you hear any sounds?
Rimmer: No
Kryten: Do you know why there are no sounds?
Rimmer: No
Kryten: Because there are no sounds to hear.

i hardly understand half of what is being said here.

so basically if u get a 92% gamut monitor it will go to waste because half the apps don't use that high level of gamut

Yes and no. Its not a waste if you are going to view HDTV content on your PC. Outside of that unless you are photographer you probably would never use the feature.

 

[Luthorcrow]

On a side note, the irony of this thread is all of the LCDs I am looking at are all wide gamut.

Still this discussion helped me understand what they can do and not do.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

most high-end LCD have sRGB mode,my eizo CG 22" have sRGB mode and emu mode to emulat other color gamut under aRGB

And the sRGB is needed, since many of the shades are internally mapped outside of sRGB space.

yes/no....if your photo/color is sRGB and using a non-colormanagment software ,the color already wrong

This is correct. As example R 255 represents a different shade in aRGB, then in sRGB, so every color gets remapped accordingly. Eizo CG 22" is almost to be reconed as ultra high-end IMO.

 

[Traveller]

With the sRGB preset and my spyder2pro's profile chooser/LUT loader I can switch between sRGB and wide gamut while I write.

Lucky dog, with the Express version, you can only create an sRGB profile and (thus) it is loaded automatically... . Had I known that I might be buying a wide-gamut monitor, I would have sprung for the Pro version...

But... sounds like a difference in software functionality only and maybe I can upgrade online... will have to check if and when I get the 2690

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

Lucky dog, with the Express version, you can only create an sRGB profile and (thus) it is loaded automatically... . Had I known that I might be buying a wide-gamut monitor, I would have sprung for the Pro version...

But... sounds like a difference in software functionality only and maybe I can upgrade online... will have to check if and when I get the 2690

Software is the only thing that seperates the express from the pro version. The pro gives you option for many custom profiles, where you can have one for each task!

 

[Tarc]

There is a free full featured calibration software that works with the spyder and other devices like the eye-one, etc..

ColorHCFR

Regards,

Marc

 

[joemama]

There is a free full featured calibration software that works with the spyder and other devices like the eye-one, etc..

ColorHCFR

Regards,

Marc

I've had that installed for a while but apparently I'm too stupid to know how to use it. I have the english version but the translation in the help file is still pretty cryptic.

edit- the best software that I've used for my Spyder 2 was the Coloreyes Display Pro beta....now that it's over I'm considering buying the full version.

 

[zzz]

I also see no positive impact outside of content designed for a wider gamut...The main push for this feature is HDTV content...they are selling the feature with the impression that it will improve image quality for all images...unless you are photographer you probably would never use the feature.

Hey man, how about responding to my post on Page 2? I thought I proved that a wider gamut makes a difference for all content.

 

[Luthorcrow]

I haven't read every post in detail, but here's my input:

There seems to be a question of whether a 92% gamut has any benefit for viewing web content, 1080p content, and most pictures. I say of course it does. Pictures and anything in the OS are restricted to a certain number of color bits, and regardless of that number, the "red-est red" or the "green-est green" will still look brighter and more vivid on a 92% gamut screen.

Only if the source image contains colors outside of the sRGB range. Almost nothing you are likely to be looking at does, so no it would look the same.

As an example, I made screenshots of Paint's color chooser and saved them as 4-bit and 8-bit bitmaps. As you can see, the gradient between the primary colors suffers, but the main colors are just as true as a 24-bit image. When I view those pictures on my 3007HC, the colors look far more vivid than a typical monitor, and that proves that content from any source will look different (and much better, in my opinion).

As I read it all that proves is that your 3007HC looks better than a typical monitor. I hope it looks better than a typical monitor for $1400!

Don't take my word for it. Here is a little test to see what I am talking about with your own eyes.

1) Below is an image I captured that is sRGB. Click on it and Save it to your PC.


2) Then open it in Photoshop.

3) Now go to Edit > Color Settings. On the Color Settings menu just change Settings (first pulldown menu) to North American Web/Internet. Make sure the Preview checkbox is selected. Do not click OK. Keep this window open while viewing the image.


4) This is sRGB.

5) Now change the Settings to North American Prepress 2. This aRGB.


You will notice as you switch between the color settings nothing changes. That is because the wider gamut will only improve viewing of images that are beyond the sRGB range. You are seeing no change because there is no change to see. sRGB is subset. It cannot be improved by viewing with a wider gamut. It would only be if you viewing an image that had a gamut wider than sRGB would it make a difference.

I am not saying wider gamut is bad. It has its uses. If you view HDTV content on your PC it may be or soon may be important. Otherwise unless you are a fine print photographer, it probably will be an used feature. Nice to have but unused.

 

[Pop]

I have watched this thread with interest and some amusement for the last several days. I moved up to a 3007WFP-HC from a 2407FWP and the difference is phenomenal. I used Eye One Display 2 to calibrate both. Most of the work I do is in Lightroom which apparently utilizes the wider color gamut, because the difference is readily apparent, not hype. (Woking with Canon 30D RAW images)

 

[Frychiko]

Well your going from a S-PVA panel to a S-IPS panel, along with any other improvements specifically made to the panel for the 3007wfp-hc... naturally the difference is going to be astounding..

 

[Traveller]

I've had that installed for a while ... best software that I've used for my Spyder 2 was the Coloreyes Display Pro

Thx (to you & Marc) for the tips, I'll have to give them both the once-over

 

[Traveller]

sRGB is subset. It cannot be improved by viewing with a wider gamut. It would only be if you viewing an image that had a gamut wider than sRGB would it make a difference.

Agreed!

I am not saying wider gamut is bad. It has its uses. If you view HDTV content on your PC it may be or soon may be important. Otherwise unless you are a fine print photographer, it probably will be an used feature. Nice to have but unused.

How come no one has mentioned the fact that a no-thrills (four, five, six-color) home printer has a different subset than sRGB has? I'm not even sure how the subset looks but I've read that it cannot reproduce the entire sRGB colorspace and that a standard sRGB monitor cannot reproduce a CMYK printer's color space.

Makes me wonder if using aRGB doesn't help cover the entire CMYK colorspace...

 

[Luthorcrow]

I have watched this thread with interest and some amusement for the last several days. I moved up to a 3007WFP-HC from a 2407FWP and the difference is phenomenal. I used Eye One Display 2 to calibrate both. Most of the work I do is in Lightroom which apparently utilizes the wider color gamut, because the difference is readily apparent, not hype. (Woking with Canon 30D RAW images)

Pop, I think your amusement was actually confusion. Seriously though yes we agree a RAW image will look better on your new monitor. Your RAW image has a wider color profile than sRGB. As mentioned if you have used your color calibrator that same image will probably look better now when viewed in regular windows programs. But the point is none of the content you see on the web, games or even most HDTV content is created for that wider color space. sRGB is the standard right now.

Your new monitor is a better monitor (S-PVA panel to a S-IPS panel). It probably has improved your viewing experience overall. But outside of those RAW images, if we are to set up a Dell 3007 WFP-HC and a 3007 WFP both calibrated the same, you would not be able to see any difference for anything except your RAW images and maybe some HDTV content.

But don’t take my word for it, Pop. Try to the test in my prior post and you will see what I am talking about. 92% gamut is a cool feature but its application is much more limited and not the global eye candy that the manufactures have lead you to believe. That is where the hype comes in.

P.S. If you are posting any of your photos on the web make sure you change your color profile in Lightroom before posting any of those pictures otherwise your images will looked washed out.

 

[Luthorcrow]

...How come no one has mentioned the fact that a no-thrills (four, five, six-color) home printer has a different subset than sRGB has? I'm not even sure how the subset looks but I've read that it cannot reproduce the entire sRGB colorspace and that a standard sRGB monitor cannot reproduce a CMYK printer's color space.

Makes me wonder if using aRGB doesn't help cover the entire CMYK colorspace...

Well I haven't because my focus has been solely on the electronic viewing experience. I am a paperless person so I never have a need to print. Maybe that makes me biased but I am willing to bet most users share their photos via email, Flicker, Photobucket etc.

Yes aRGB would cover CMYK but are you sure about home printers not being able to produce sRGB? As I said I don't use printers but that just doesn't make sense given that average home user is luck if their monitor even covers sRGB properly much less aRGB. It would seem like a no frills printer would have to be able to print sRGB properly or be useless to most home users.

 

[Pop]

Pop, I think your amusement was actually confusion. Seriously though yes we agree a RAW image will look better on your new monitor. Your RAW image has a wider color profile than sRGB. As mentioned if you have used your color calibrator that same image will probably look better now when viewed in regular windows programs. But the point is none of the content you see on the web, games or even most HDTV content is created for that wider color space. sRGB is the standard right now.

Your new monitor is a better monitor (S-PVA panel to a S-IPS panel). It probably has improved your viewing experience overall. But outside of those RAW images, if we are to set up a Dell 3007 WFP-HC and a 3007 WFP both calibrated the same, you would not be able to see any difference for anything except your RAW images and maybe some HDTV content.

But don’t take my word for it, Pop. Try to the test in my prior post and you will see what I am talking about. 92% gamut is a cool feature but its application is much more limited and not the global eye candy that the manufactures have lead you to believe. That is where the hype comes in.

P.S. If you are posting any of your photos on the web make sure you change your color profile in Lightroom before posting any of those pictures otherwise your images will looked washed out.

I must admit, it doesn't take a lot to get me confused, but I actually do understand this area ) I think?) and do agree with you on the general take about color gamut. The only reason I posted is for those that use their monitors a lot for photography and feel due to this thread that there is no purpose in having the 92% gamut. I mainly went to the 3007 due to the S-IPS panel as I could never get used to the S-PVA in the 2407. I had gotten used to the S-IPS in my trusty old 2001FP, so I'm no virgin to the S-IPS. The 92% gamut was just an added bonus. Thanks for the input on posting pictures, I do have Lightroom set for sRBG on exported pictures.

 

[Luthorcrow]

Agreed. I may have posted too strongly on some points but yes, we agree that for some that are serious about their photography there are uses for this feature. But for folks that just want to share photos on Flicker, Photobucket etc vs. show something in a gallery its overkill. Kinda like a turbo charger on a GMC Gremilin.

 

[zzz]

That is because the wider gamut will only improve viewing of images that are beyond the sRGB range.

Thanks for the explanation. My 3007HC puts out such vivid colors compared to any monitor I've ever seen that I figured the increased gamut had a lot to do with it. I even use a G520 at work right now but there's no comparison. But you're saying it's just the S-IPS at work, and a 72% gamut already covers the spectrum. In theory you can argue that almost all pictures are sRGB, but I think we really need a side-by-side comparison of 3007 vs 3007HC to know for sure.

My Photoshop 7 doesn't have those North American presets, but I get your point. I do have "Japan Prepress Defaults", and selecting that makes the red and yellow Google letters brighter.

Now what about 3D games--are those restricted to sRGB? If so, why?

 

[Luthorcrow]

...but I think we really need a side-by-side comparison of 3007 vs 3007HC to know for sure.

Nope we can still do it with just your 3007HC. Thanks for your post. You caught a mistake. I failed to convert the color space of the Google screen capture (fixed) before saving the screen capture. Try it again but this time just save the Google image directly from Google. Go head and open my test image for comparison. If don't have the same presets (CS2) just change the selection for the Workspace/RGB (see image). Notice how the google.gif doesn't change but my screen capture does. It shows two issues at once.



1) 99% content gets no benefit from the wider gamut
2) Creating images in a wider gamut will force you to have deal with color correction/converting to sRGB otherwise your images run the risk of looking like crap on 99% of folks PCs.

I am guessing your G520, whether calibrated or not, is probably getting older and may not be up to peak anymore.

...Now what about 3D games--are those restricted to sRGB? If so, why?

As for the why, well, I don't have numbers but I think we can agree that it is safe to assume that only early adopters with cash have wider gamut monitors and folks with CRTs. That is a pretty small group of folks to start. Then lets take that small group of CRT and wide gamut LCD owners and narrow it down to only those that have bothered to calibrate their monitors. We are left with such a small niche group.

It am sure by the time there are enough wide gamut monitors and HDTV sets to matter we eventually see the color standard change to a wider gamut. But its anyone's guess as to when that will be and it is a safe bet that is a while down the road.

A wider gamut just is not a real feature for most folks. Deeper blacks, less banding, viewing angles, ghosting etc are much more important for most users.

 

[Rembrandt]

I have decided that the wide gamut panels are the way to go. This will become a more common feature in the future and a monitor is a long term investment for me. I do not want, in a couple of years from now, to feel that I have an outdated monitor. When the new LED and other technology panels come out, they will also have this technology. An IPS panel with wide gamut is the only thing I will be looking for. At the moment there are just a couple of them from Dell, NEC, Ezio and Planar. I am not a professional print photographer so the NEC and Ezio are not on my list anymore. My Photoshop and Web work will not be hindered from it if I keep Photoshop in sRGB mode and that goes with any web creation program also. I prefer a 24” but the Dell 30” is now on top of the list if anything else does not come up before the Dell goes on sale.

 

[zzz]

...We are left with such a small niche group.

It am sure by the time there are enough wide gamut monitors and HDTV sets to matter we eventually see the color standard change to a wider gamut. But its anyone's guess as to when that will be and it is a safe bet that is a while down the road.

I was asking about the color standard that is used when 3D graphics are generated. It makes perfect sense to me that almost all images would be saved under the sRGB standard, but I don't know what 3D games generate. I guess when it comes down to it, almost everything is based on textures, and those textures are just images, so maybe that's sRGB too.

 

[Luthorcrow]

We are pretty much in the same boat. The 3007 HC is at the top of my list as well. Sadly my video card tanked on Friday (I am using a 5200 FX until the next pay check). So that sets back my jump to a larger work space at least a month or two more down the road. But for me the selling point is the size, resolution and IPS panel. I still think by the time I will care about wide gamut, it will have been sold on e-Bay.

I would like to back up to a statement you corrected which after having experimented and did some more research I think you were wrong about. It was specifically this quote in reply to my test of a sRGB image looking over saturated when viewed in the aRGB color space.

That does not make any sense to me Lithorcrow. The colors of sRGB are basically a subset of aRGB. sRGB’s full range encompasses within the range of aRGB. The pallet of aRGB would have all of the colors of sRGB and more. It would be capable of displaying the same identical colors of sRGB.

I took your reply on face value but after repeated experiments I have found that you were wrong. sRGB images do in fact do look over saturated in aRGB. Try it with any random JPG that does not have a color profile embedded and you will see what I mean. Just for support proposes here are some links to support my point.

So if you overrode the windows color profile on the OS level and reset it to say aRGB it would negatively impact your viewing experience.

Adobe Forum Thread

You used “Save for Web” and you did not check the ICC profile box. If you open in Photoshop and you have not told Photoshop to warn you of this (color management policies in visual 4), it will not know the color profile, ignore the work you did and revert to the aRGB default colors. aRGB default colors will look oversaturated.

Source: From section "Clearing Up Some of the Confusion"www.digitalimagecafe.com

On a side note, I found a really cool Color Control Panel option that should have shipped with XP (apparently Apple had this for years already).

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/prophoto/colorcontrol.mspx

 

[Luthorcrow]

I was asking about the color standard that is used when 3D graphics are generated. It makes perfect sense to me that almost all images would be saved under the sRGB standard, but I don't know what 3D games generate. I guess when it comes down to it, almost everything is based on textures, and those textures are just images, so maybe that's sRGB too.

Doesn't matter if the content is a 3D render (games), web, etc. Most content is optimized for sRGB because it is a standard and a subset of the wider HDTV color gamut. So it allows for HDTV content to have more colors without over saturating the smaller gamut of sRGB images.

From what I have read most HDTV in the US is still sRGB but this may not apply to XB360, P3, Blueray if the content maker is using the full color space of HDTV.

But PC games are made for sRGB that you can bank on.

 

[Rembrandt]

For Luthorcrow:

The Adobe thread does not relate to this thread. He had a standard monitor and the problem was with AdobeRGB (aRGB) and ProPhotoRGB. Both of these are different from sRGB.

Facts: sRGB is a subset of aRGB. All of the colors of sRGB will be rendered exactly as they were created when viewed in aRGB because the entire color pallet of sRGB is in the pallet of aRGB. aRGB is not a separate pallet from sRGB (It is an expanded pallet of sRGB). A wide gamut monitor will never hurt the quality of the picture. It can only expand upon what we see now.


Facts: If you view an aRGB picture on a non-wide gamut LCD monitor (almost everything out there), you will see the same colors except in the areas where the wide gamut colors were used (the outer or expanded spectrum not used by sRGB). Those color areas will almost always seem to be dull and lifeless if you have the wide gamut picture side by side with it because the colors chosen will not be available and the closest colors in sRGB will have to be used. This would affect outside pictures more than a portrait of a face. A face picture would almost always be in the basic color space but you could have much more vibrant and bright greens, reds and blues outside with the wider color space.

Changing a JPG picture is not a way to consider the color differences. The JPG type is a compressed picture that will alter itself if you try to convert its basic structure. You would be guarantied nothing but disaster converting it to aRGB. You must use an uncompressed TIF, PGN or preferably a RAW format picture created in sRGB. Then you will be able to convert the picture to an aRGB picture (if done right). I have no idea why someone would want to convert a picture to aRGB because there is no benefit to it and you can only loose quality in a conversion. You are trying to recreate a wide gamut monitor view by trying to change or view a low quality image on a standard monitor and it is just not going to happen.

Look in the Dell 30” threads, the Dell 27” threads and you will find they are very happy with the vibrant colors that they render with these wide gamut monitors. Until you have one of these wide gamut monitors, you do not know what web pages, pictures or movies were created in wide gamut because you only know what your current monitor will show.

 

[Luthorcrow]

Well I guess I will revisit this topic in a month or two we can I run those tests again. To be clear I wasn't talking about converting, I was referring to this quote on the Digital Image Cafe Photoguidelines regarding viewing sRGB image in aRGB:

]...it will not know the color profile, ignore the work you did and revert to the aRGB default colors. aRGB default colors will look oversaturated. This is why I believe some people think using “Save for Web” changes the color. This definitely threw me off. I tested using Save for Web and Save As and sent them to an image hosting site and compared both. There was no change to the color. This was also can be proven by color measurement readings. If you send your file using “Save for Web” to someone who will view in Photoshop, either tag it by clicking the ICC Profile box or inform them so they can view it in the correct color profile. This also applies to Save As, however the ICC box is checked by default.

JPEG/TIF wouldn't matter, both are capable of aRGB color. But yes, I may be limited by my current monitor. I am curious to see the results down the road.

 

[Rembrandt]

His answer to color shifting:

“There was no change to the color. This was also can be proven by color measurement readings.”

 

[Luthorcrow]

Not to be a thorn but your are misquoting that statement. When is referring to "no change" in the color is he is referring to the saved sRGB image not the saved sRGB output image viewed in aRGB. The article is written assuming someone is potentially working in a wider gamut space than sRGB. He is detailing how to convert the ouput image to sRGB and to embedded an icc profile to prevent the colors form shifting when viewed in PS if the workspace is something other than sRGB. The point being that if you do not embed the profile PS or any other color managed program will oversaturate the colors if the workspace is set to a color space greater than sRGB.

Its just an example of how using any color space outside of sRGB can run into some serious color issues. I am still researching why this happens. It may not apply to folks that are using color calibration tools. I suspect that color calibration tools are designed to ensure color accuracy within the sRGB space as set in the OS. If not, if it was possible to say change your default OS color space to aRGB, the result based would be ugly. But then some folks like oversaturated? Candy is good.

Anyway, until either you or I upgrade, I can't make a definitive test but I suspect the result will be the same.

How this applies is to further underscore the point the 92% gamut is an unused function. Otherwise if it did actually apply to your OS with color calibration, it would actually degrade your viewing experience. Assuming I am correct.

 

[Traveller]

I am a paperless person so I never have a need to print.

Well, Mom's got a Flickr acct, but I can't get my Grandma to convert, lol

On a more serious note, I still like to frame my best work and hang it on my walls / make a gift out of a picture for a friend, etc. More often then not, I never quite manage to get the same colors I see on my calibrated monitor out of my icm-friendly printer(s). Unfortunately I am neither a color nor icm expert so I was hoping that the problem could be alleivated with a wider-gamut monitor...

 

[Luthorcrow]

Good luck. From what I have read it works the other way around. Wider gamut color spaces tend to be harder to manage because it only takes one break in the chain. sRGB all the way through is easier to manage. Maybe I should petition to have my user name changed to sRGB.

But given that your PC will still default to sRGB it won't hurt anything. Besides monitors that have this feature tend to be better monitors despite the over reach. The more I read the more I am convinced wider gamuts will ultimately not be really successful until we have color monitors that can do more the 8 bit. Folks think that wider gamut means more colors. Actually its still 8 bits. Its just smearing the same number of values over a wider spectrum which can lead to gaps, banding.

By the way, I did find answer as to why sRGB images color shift/oversaturate when viewed in aRGB color spaces (or an wider gamut color space).

It is a common misconception that Adobe RGB has more colors than sRGB since it is easy to assume that the palette of colors across the gamut of each is continuous, but it's not. Welcome to the digital world: zeros and ones. Digital creates the illusion of a continuous spectrum by the force of sheer numbers. Even in 8-bit depth with just 256 possible values in each channel, multiplying the possibilities of all three channels together yields 16.7 million total colors (256 times 256 times 256). That's a mighty big box of crayons.

What Adobe RGB does have then is colors that are further apart from one another than are those in sRGB. The colors must be more widely spaced, since the quantity available is the same as in sRGB but they have to cover a wider gamut.

So what is happening is that the sRGB image that does not have an embedded icm/icc profile or if you chose to ignore it when viewed in aRGB is being mapped or associated to the wrong shades because the two color spaces are mapped differently. The same happens in the reverse. If it was just the sRGB had less red and green then those would be the only colors effected but instead it is difference in associations for all colors.

Source: srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-debate

So what is the point? Be happy your monitor is using a sRGB profile. Otherwise it could jack your colors. You can check to see what your OS using by installing the Color Panel Applet

How To Use It

I see a better color calibrator in my future.

Anyway, thanks to everyone that replied, disagreed, agreed or otherwise. This thread has been a learning experience. I am sure I am just scratching the surface.

 

[Rembrandt]

The Adobe Photoshop program is a program, nothing more. You can manipulate pictures in the program to your desired effect. There are limitations even in Photoshop as to how well it can manipulate a picture without altering it. The result you received from your photo manipulation is a program adjustment and has nothing to do with the color spectrum. The program made the picture different not the color spectrum. Photoshop is not perfect.

 

[Luthorcrow]

Agreed. We completely agree on that point. I never meant to imply that sRGB is not a subset of aRGB in the real world. But in the digital world, it is not.

By the way, I do owe you an apology on my last reply. The author was stating as you said that the numerical values did not change but there was a change in color due to the fact that same numerical values are associated differently between each color space.

I found an example discussing this point in "Photoshop Color Correction" by Michael Keiran page 79.



I also had a chance to look more into the early claim I accepted regarding color calibrators changing or overriding the default color space of Windows OS. At the time, I completely misunderstood what this diagram meant:

You'll see it in your link from W3.org. Windows uses a color management system with .ICC profiles. If your screen is calibrated and profiled to aRGB, it will show everything outside of coloraware applications as aRGB. Internet explorer are also bound by windows color management. When calibrated and profiled to aRGB...

I have seen a lot of variations on this diagram but basically this color management chart has nothing do with the monitor in question displaying a wide gamut in all applications. What does detail is an aRGB work flow where each device is has been calibrated to an aRGB profile. The selling point is that the monitor is more capable of showing the full aRGB spectrum then a normal narrow gamut monitor but in truth fine print photographers often edit images that in a color space far beyond the capabilities of their monitor (Pro RGB for example).

I am sure someone could give a better explanation of what a monitor calibrator does but it does not override the default color space. What does do is accurately measure specific values of black, white, red, blue and green and builds a profile to compensate for the particular failures of your specific monitor to display those values correctly. That profile is then referenced by whatever piece of software is attempting to display a color space, whether that is Photoshop or Windows.

For example we can look at my PC and monitor as an example by using the new Microsoft Color Control Panel Applet to see that profiling your monitor has zero impact on your OS color space.

In the first panel we can see that despite profiling on a regular basis my default color space is still sRGB


Here we can compare sRGB to aRGB. The light gray areas on some of the colors not covered by sRGB


But if we look at the profile that Huey created for my monitor is quite a bit wider than sRGB. Its just a bit shy of aRGB (a good CRT is capable of wider gamuts then most LCDs). Yet there is no change to the color space of any application I use outside of color managed applications.


So I realize we pretty much have reach the end of the road on this discussion but I wanted to correct some misstatements I made. Although I make no claim to be a color management expert, I am pretty certain of the following conclusions (I am always open to being proven wrong ).

Conclusions
So yes largely the wider gamut crazy is about 90% hype. Consumers are being mislead to believe (generally but side by side displays of an aRGB image next to a sRGB image, ironically all displayed in sRGB) that this feature will improve their colors globally. The truth is only folks that do fine print photography or maybe HDTV (Blueray, Xbox360, etc) users will every see a single shade of extra color.

Along the way, I found out the following tidbits.

1) Monitor calibrators do not widen your gamut or change the default color space of Windows. Outside of a few color managed programs (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc) sRGB is all you get.

2) Monitor companies purposely leave the false impression to the consumer that this feature will have global impact on their colors.

3) The only users that will see these benefits are specialized photographers and folks viewing HDTV content on their PC.

4) It is likely that most current HDTV content is still sRGB.

5) A wide gamut in an 8 bit display or a color space does not have any more colors than an 8 bit narrow display in sRGB. They have same number of data points. They are just distributed differently.

Anyway it was interesting and thanks for helping see beyond the hype.