Is there a wide gamut standard?

[Startup123]

As far as I know sRGB standard was created after the fact based on the display technology already in place which was mainly crt monitors and TVs. sRGB color gamut was created to reflect the capabilities of the average display device of that time. However after the standard was set, the new devices, especially LCD monitors were not naturally restricted to the sRGB gamut but the manufacturers made them so that they are compatible with the sRGB content out there. Also devices manufactured after the standard was set may have contributed to more consistent color as these devices were created with certain standard in mind.
But how about wide gamut monitors? Is there any wide gamut standard that each panel manufacturer follows or it is up to each manufacturer to produce whatever they can and call it wide gamut when the gamut is wider than sRGB?

I'm asking this question because when color managing a system, if it is sRGB, one can choose sRGB viewing condition system wide and the display will be in the ballpark of the intended viewing experience of the sRGB content. But how about wide gamut? Windows 7 also comes with a "wide gamut" color profile. If this color profile is selected in the system, will the viewing experience be in the ballpark of the wide gamut displays currently on the market or it will much more off than what is the case with sRGB?

 

[zorobabel]

I don't think there is such a standard.

 

[Sycraft]

Wide gamut just means "wider than sRGB". So for standards that are wider, yes there are many. aRGB (Adobe RGB) is a big one. It is designed for print because it encompasses almost the entire ISOcoated space which means that you can see basically anything you can print.

The other problem is that it isn't easy to precisely match a monitor to a standard. The only real way to do that is to make it wider than the given standard, and control it through software. You discover that most "standard gamut, sRGB" monitors are not. They fall short of the sRGB primaries, sometimes fairly badly so.

Unfortunately the colour management situation isn't real good right now. Most things aren't colour space aware and don't even know what space they'd want. Also design isn't consistent. You'll find that people who develop games sometimes use wide gamut monitors, sometimes don't, etc. There isn't a standard, not even sRGB, that is used.

 

[ElektroDragon]

Yeah, there is a wide-gamut standard: you are guaranteed garish, overly saturated colors.

 

[Startup123]

Wide gamut just means "wider than sRGB". So for standards that are wider, yes there are many. aRGB (Adobe RGB) is a big one. It is designed for print because it encompasses almost the entire ISOcoated space which means that you can see basically anything you can print....

Yes, I'm aware of these standards but my question was more about if the manufacturers of these wide gamut displays follow any standard as a target or they simply throw in the market whatever they can achieve in widening the color gamut of displays.

... The other problem is that it isn't easy to precisely match a monitor to a standard. The only real way to do that is to make it wider than the given standard, and control it through software....

AFAIK the LCD technology is not naturally restricted to sRGB gamut and is more capable than this but the manufacturers are restricting it when making sRGB or non wide gamut displays. So, they do have an sRGB target in mind when making those displays although, as you said, it might not be easy to precisely match the standard with each model and unit.

... The only real way to do that is to make it wider than the given standard, and control it through software. You discover that most "standard gamut, sRGB" monitors are not. They fall short of the sRGB primaries, sometimes fairly badly so.....

Actually the feedback from users of wide gamut monitors (me included), it turned out to be much more difficult to make wide gamut monitors display correctly sRGB gamut than native sRGB monitors including those that, as you say, "fall short of the sRGB primaries" But may be this is due to the lack of proper software that needs to catch up with the current hardware.

 

[Surly73]

AdobeRGB (shortened 'aRGB') is usually what wide gamut displays are shooting for and will usually list a percentage of aRGB covereage in their specs.

That being said, every display has it's own gamut (regardless of whether the manufacturer says "sRGB", "aRGB", "wide" or whatever) and requires profiling and calibration for true colour managed workflow. As long as you're using colourspace-aware apps (the list is growing) there are far fewer issues.

 

[AMoody]

You'll find that people who develop games sometimes use wide gamut monitors, sometimes don't, etc. There isn't a standard, not even sRGB, that is used.

Everyone should be targeting a d65 sRGB space but lots of developers don't even profile their displays.

 

[Startup123]

Everyone should be targeting a d65 sRGB space but lots of developers don't even profile their displays.

It doesn't make sense to hold content development at the lowest denominator.
I think the problem can be solved at its core by Microsoft if they make Windows color managed at system level. All untagged programs (their interfaces and images) can be displayed as being assumed sRGB and all tagged content properly converted to the monitor's color space. It doesn't seem to be a big technical problem it is simply a matter of decision - if Photoshop and other color manged programs can do it, why not the system itself? I don't think sRGB monitors will be manufactured forever and usually changes like that occur sooner than expected - I think in a few years it will be very hard to buy a new non wide gamut monitors.

 

[Sycraft]

It doesn't make sense to hold content development at the lowest denominator.
I think the problem can be solved at its core by Microsoft if they make Windows color managed at system level. All untagged programs (their interfaces and images) can be displayed as being assumed sRGB and all tagged content properly converted to the monitor's color space. It doesn't seem to be a big technical problem it is simply a matter of decision - if Photoshop and other color manged programs can do it, why not the system itself? I don't think sRGB monitors will be manufactured forever and usually changes like that occur sooner than expected - I think in a few years it will be very hard to buy a new non wide gamut monitors.

Well Windows does have quite a good built in color management system. However it doesn't enforce it on apps. The application itself has to check the system and then use the CMS data. However all the necessary stuff is there.

So really the answer is just for programs to start making use of the colour management that is on the system now. Unfortunately, I don't know how likely that is.

 

[Startup123]

Well Windows does have quite a good built in color management system. However it doesn't enforce it on apps. The application itself has to check the system and then use the CMS data. However all the necessary stuff is there.

So really the answer is just for programs to start making use of the colour management that is on the system now. Unfortunately, I don't know how likely that is.

I would hardly call this an adequate color management system. The color managed programs basically do almost all by themselves without any substantial help from the system. In fact the color managed programs can easily do It all by themselves as was the case with older Photoshop versions on prior Windows systems that lacked any color management. Relying on each developer to implement their own color management way of using the color profiles is a bad idea and is not only prone to inconsistencies but it is far less efficient. Of course specialized programs like Photoshop could use their own extended color management services.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Sailor_Moon]

Everyone should be targeting a d65 sRGB space but lots of developers don't even profile their displays.

The white point is solely dependent on your ambient/ color matching conditions. The normative documents define the sRGB/ AdobeRGB primaries relative to D65. But that doesn't mean that you have a false representation with an other whitepoint. Regarding a flexible color space emulation (like the NEC PA or Eizo CG offer) you (just) have to adapt the desired primaries chromatically (good: via Bradford). In the ICC workflow the whitepoint is a "transit item" anyway (values are chromatically adapted and stored relative to D50; a kind of backward calculation only takes place with absolute colorimetric RI).

Is there any wide gamut standard that each panel manufacturer follows or it is up to each manufacturer to produce whatever they can and call it wide gamut when the gamut is wider than sRGB?

No. Depending on the BLU current WCG displays reach 92-108% NTSC. AdobeRGB is covered quite good but the WCG screens follow no concept like sRGB (that works if all components support it precisely enough without color management in the SoHo sector).

Best regards

Denis

 

[monitorrat]

.
Actually the feedback from users of wide gamut monitors (me included), it turned out to be much more difficult to make wide gamut monitors display correctly sRGB gamut than native sRGB monitors including those that, as you say, "fall short of the sRGB primaries" But may be this is due to the lack of proper software that needs to catch up with the current hardware.

Many don't have the proper internal controls or a high enough quality CMS.

The Eizo and more recent NECs do though and you can tweak the sRGB mode to measure basically 100% dead on on my NEC PA241W (even as is from the factory it is closer than my old sRGB monitor!). The gamma curve even follows along sRGB TRC instead of Gamma 2.2 or whatnot and the primaries and secondaries fall right on spec and the saturation curves are a pretty close match too.

But then there is the whole metamerism issue whereby even if a probe says two monitors measure the same, if they use different filters and backlighting wiht different spectral spikes and characteristics they can actually look visually somewhat different. COmparing PA241W to Samsung 244T, even comparing colors that probes say are the same, well, they don't look the same. Many things imply the wide gamuts needs correction for that but it's not easy to do that perfectly and each person may see the corrections a bit differently, however, when I compared a real world color checker test pattern to both screens, it actually looked more like the wide gamut to me, maybe that's just me or maybe it's actually the standard gamut LCD that are the ones that actually are in even greater need of metameric correction than the standard???

 

[monitorrat]

AdobeRGB (shortened 'aRGB') is usually what wide gamut displays are shooting for and will usually list a percentage of aRGB covereage in their specs.

That being said, every display has it's own gamut (regardless of whether the manufacturer says "sRGB", "aRGB", "wide" or whatever) and requires profiling and calibration for true colour managed workflow. As long as you're using colourspace-aware apps (the list is growing) there are far fewer issues.

And since once you go outside of sRGB, you must be color managed anyway, it really doesn't matter too much anyway. That said a few monitors do have an AdobeRGB preset, getting them as close as they can to that spec (almost all undershoot a tiny bit in extreme yellow-green though, at least) I guess just in case you want to view AdobeRGB files in a non-managed viewer. Some wide gamut monitors cover more reds, magentas, deep purples than AdobeRGB can. I have a few photos where editing in AdobeRGB doesn't reveal everything and where I need to go to ProPhotoRGB.

 

[monitorrat]

It doesn't make sense to hold content development at the lowest denominator.
I think the problem can be solved at its core by Microsoft if they make Windows color managed at system level. All untagged programs (their interfaces and images) can be displayed as being assumed sRGB and all tagged content properly converted to the monitor's color space. It doesn't seem to be a big technical problem it is simply a matter of decision - if Photoshop and other color manged programs can do it, why not the system itself? I don't think sRGB monitors will be manufactured forever and usually changes like that occur sooner than expected - I think in a few years it will be very hard to buy a new non wide gamut monitors.

For games, they probably don't want the slowdown of having to go through a full CMS.

In general though, it would be nice if Windows did a bit more universal color managing, at least as an option.

 

[monitorrat]

Well Windows does have quite a good built in color management system. However it doesn't enforce it on apps. The application itself has to check the system and then use the CMS data. However all the necessary stuff is there.

So really the answer is just for programs to start making use of the colour management that is on the system now. Unfortunately, I don't know how likely that is.

Well windows can't even be forced to color mangage it's own desktop so....