Difference between 16.2 and 16.7 million colors
- Thread starter BillyBobJoel71
- Start date
I kinda doubt that there's any real difference (and I thought I'd read that humans can only distinguish 7-8 million shades anyway). Both can be considered 24 bit color (2^24, or 16777216 colors).
I would guess that it has more to do with it just being a cheap lower-quality panel than anything.
How do the contrast ratio specs of the monitors compare?
It's not really 16.2 million colors. It's actually 262.1 thousand colors that it can display. The other 15.9 million are done through dithering, meaning alternating colors, that the eye may perceive as the real color it's trying to display. It may create a sparkling effect.
As far as the washed out color, I think it's the panel.
As far as the washed out color, I think it's the panel.
Yes.
Look at the box with the many shades of blue on this page:
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2289&p=16
Look at it on both LCD's, I think you'll see the difference.
i am not at the sony now, its in florida. i looked at that box, and it displays lines through it each a diffrernt shade. is it supposed to be smootH? here are the sony specs: * Compatibility: PC and Mac
* Panel type: TFT active matrix LCD
* Display size: 17 inches
* Diagonal viewable screen size: 17 inches
* Dot pitch: 0.264 mm
* Colors: 16.2 million
* Color Temperature Control: 9300K, 6500K + USER
* Plug and Play: DDC-2B
* Power Consumption Max/ECO: 34W (max)
* Power Standby: 1W (max)
* Internal Power Supply: Yes
* Contrast ratio: 500:1
* Glass surface: Coated, non-glare
* Horizontal viewing angle: 160 degrees
* Vertical viewing angle: 150 degrees
* Light source: Florescent
* Response time: 20 ms typical
* Brightness: 250 cd/m2
* Input signals: Analog video
* Input connector/cable: HD15 video cable
* Maximum noninterlaced resolution: 1280 x 1024
* Horizontal frequency: 28 - 80 KHz
* Vertical frequency: 48 - 75 Hz
* Power on/off: Yes
* Contrast: Yes
* Brightness: Yes
* Horizontal/vertical position: Yes
* Horizontal/vertical size: Yes
* Color temperature: Yes
* Tilt range: 5 to 20 degrees
* Width: 17.4 inches
* Height: 15.9 inches
* Depth: 8.5 inches
* Weight: 12.9 pounds
* Warranty, parts: 3 years
* Warranty, labor: 3 years
----------------------------------------------sharp specs:
Manufacturer Sharp
Manufacturer Part # LL-173C-B
Cost Central Item # G07896
Product Description 17in Lcd 500:1 1280x1024 Ll173cb Black Vga 12ms
Device Type Flat panel display / TFT active matrix
Color Black
Approximate Dimensions (WxDxH) 14.8 in x 8.2 in x 15.4 in
Approximate Weight 9.7 lbs
Diagonal Size 17"
Brightness 260 cd/m2
Dot Pitch / Pixel Pitch 0.264 mm
Max Resolution 1280 x 1024 / 76 Hz
Color Support Up to 16.2 million colors
Interface VGA (HD-15)
Compliant Standards CE, UL, TUV GS, VCCI Class B ITE, cUL, DDC-2B, EPA Energy Star, TCO '99, VESA DPMS, PSB, FCC
Power AC 110/230 V ( 50/60 Hz )
Power Consumption Operational 30 Watt
* Panel type: TFT active matrix LCD
* Display size: 17 inches
* Diagonal viewable screen size: 17 inches
* Dot pitch: 0.264 mm
* Colors: 16.2 million
* Color Temperature Control: 9300K, 6500K + USER
* Plug and Play: DDC-2B
* Power Consumption Max/ECO: 34W (max)
* Power Standby: 1W (max)
* Internal Power Supply: Yes
* Contrast ratio: 500:1
* Glass surface: Coated, non-glare
* Horizontal viewing angle: 160 degrees
* Vertical viewing angle: 150 degrees
* Light source: Florescent
* Response time: 20 ms typical
* Brightness: 250 cd/m2
* Input signals: Analog video
* Input connector/cable: HD15 video cable
* Maximum noninterlaced resolution: 1280 x 1024
* Horizontal frequency: 28 - 80 KHz
* Vertical frequency: 48 - 75 Hz
* Power on/off: Yes
* Contrast: Yes
* Brightness: Yes
* Horizontal/vertical position: Yes
* Horizontal/vertical size: Yes
* Color temperature: Yes
* Tilt range: 5 to 20 degrees
* Width: 17.4 inches
* Height: 15.9 inches
* Depth: 8.5 inches
* Weight: 12.9 pounds
* Warranty, parts: 3 years
* Warranty, labor: 3 years
----------------------------------------------sharp specs:
Manufacturer Sharp
Manufacturer Part # LL-173C-B
Cost Central Item # G07896
Product Description 17in Lcd 500:1 1280x1024 Ll173cb Black Vga 12ms
Device Type Flat panel display / TFT active matrix
Color Black
Approximate Dimensions (WxDxH) 14.8 in x 8.2 in x 15.4 in
Approximate Weight 9.7 lbs
Diagonal Size 17"
Brightness 260 cd/m2
Dot Pitch / Pixel Pitch 0.264 mm
Max Resolution 1280 x 1024 / 76 Hz
Color Support Up to 16.2 million colors
Interface VGA (HD-15)
Compliant Standards CE, UL, TUV GS, VCCI Class B ITE, cUL, DDC-2B, EPA Energy Star, TCO '99, VESA DPMS, PSB, FCC
Power AC 110/230 V ( 50/60 Hz )
Power Consumption Operational 30 Watt
If your using a samsung 19" 915 or 930B ,or the like, 6 bit LCD, the response time and picture quality are exceptional and you will not likely notice anything major you'd be missing out on. If you were to game side by side with a high quality 1000:1 8 bit LCD, however, in a highly detail graphical game like world of warcraft, you would notice a bigger variety of shades and subtle colors your screen is not picking up on. If you were to compare that same high end LCD with a high end CRT, the CRT would likely have even more details the LCD is missing. Also, it's subjective as some people are more sensitive to visual stimuli then others. It is the reason why one user will notice unacceptable levels of ghosting in a certain game on an LCD while the next guy using the same system will proclaim there is zero ghosting. Some people can detect slight color shade variations far better then others.
IMO, the 8-bit 16.7m colors will look better than the dithered 16.2m colors. I remember when video cards were mostly run at 16-bit color instead of the now common 32-bit color; the 16-bit dithered color never looked "correct" to me. I can't say it is exactly the same difference for 6-bit vs 8-bit LCD's, but I would think there would be a noticable difference in color. Most LCD reviews / postings I read, focus on response time instead of color reproduction. I am not aware of any certain way to determine if an LCD is 6-bit or 8-bit. Usually 16.7m colors is 8-bit, but due to the lack of standardized specs. for LCD's, it can be difficult to know what you have for sure. It would be nice if there were a software test program that would show if the LCD is 8-bit or 6-bit. Some software I find usful to set and check my LCD is:
WiziWYG to create a new color profile
TFTtest 1.5 to test the monitor (In Russian - use the arrow keys to change the pattern colors etc.)
WiziWYG to create a new color profile
TFTtest 1.5 to test the monitor (In Russian - use the arrow keys to change the pattern colors etc.)
Here's how it works:
Each pixel is made up of three sub-pixels: red, green, and blue. For an LCD, since a sub-pixel is the fundamental unit, the number of bits is given in terms of per sub-pixel rather than per pixel as with a CRT. So an 8-bit LCD is the same as a 24-bit CRT (and 32-bit as well for most CRTs). This is the number of 0 or 1 values that each sub-pixel can have; essentially, then, 8-bit means each sub-pixel can display 2^8 = 256 different shades, and since there are three sub-pixels per pixel, that's 256^3 = 16777216 = 16.7M (or sometimes you'll see 16.8M) colors per pixel. For a 6-bit LCD, it's 2^6 = 64 shades per sub-pixel, and 64^3 = 262144 colors per pixel.
When the computer passes on the data to the monitor, it devotes 4 bytes per pixel. Each byte is 8 bits of data, for each of the colors. The 4th byte is actually just a dummy byte and just makes things line up (4 bytes are easier to work with than 3). For 8-bit, the values go from 0, 1, 2, ... all the way up to 253, 254, 255 (0 to 255 in increments of 1). For 6-bit, however, since they only have 64 colors to work with, the values are 0, 4, 8, etc. up to 244, 248, 252 (0 to 252 in increments of 4). To display the in-between values, then, there are two main techniques. The older method is dithering. If you wanted to display 193, the closest values are 196 and 192. Then for every 4 pixels, you set one pixel's value to 196 and the three others to 192. The eye perceives them together and it averages out to 193. The newer method is to use something called frame rate control. Essentially it's dithering but done over time instead of over space. For every 4 frames, one frame will be 196 while the other 3 frames are 192. The monitor chooses different pixels to be at 196 every frame so that you don't notice flashing of large parts of the monitor.
So with 6-bit, you lose 253, 254, 255 but can otherwise simulate the other 253 colors (0 to 252). That's 253^3 = 16194277 = 16.2M colors, which isn't as high as 16.7M, but at least it sounds a lot better than 262K. 6-bit panels are naturally faster (the reason has to do with how the pixel decays, I've seen the formula somewhere, I'll try to look it up) so there's less reliance on other techniques to speed up response time like overdrive. If colors look washed out, though, that's more likely because of incorrect color settings (i.e. color profile) I think rather than 6-bit vs 8-bit -- the main gripe with 6-bit is that they produce video artifacts (such as lines in a smooth shade gradient), not about their color gamut; aside from losing 253 to 255, they can simulate the same colors. 6-bit panels are also somewhat cheaper to make than 8-bit.
Is it important? I think it depends on the user. I thought my laptop was 8-bit for over a month because it passed the shading tests on some websites (no artifacts), until I made a 253-255 test and found it failed. It also fails the Anandtech test by the way (it looks like there's circle arcs with center of circle at the upper left), so that's a pretty good test I think (considering other shading tests failed to show that my laptop is 6-bit). Another way is to test to see if you got the values 253-255. That one can be found here:
http://www.amptron.com/chuck/bittest.bmp
If you have a TN panel, the blacks are easy to tell if you look from slightly above, while the whites are easy to tell if you look from slightly below. If you can't see the boundaries for 252-255, then 1) you have a 6-bit or 2) you're not looking at the right angle. If you can see the boundaries for both white and black, then 1) you have an 8-bit or 2) they've finally produced a 6-bit dithering scheme that can generate all 255 colors.
So for me, I used to be against 6-bit (especially with how manufacturers try to cover it up) but now I'm kinda neutral on the issue. I've been using it for about two months now and it hasn't bothered me. Then again, I don't do any graphical processing or the like, but aside from Starcraft my computer usage is mostly office and web stuff, so I've never bought into the need for 4 ms or 8 ms monitors or the like. In the end I think whether or not it's important really depends on how you use your computer. If you game (and don't really care about color quality but just need to frag that guy) then a 6-bit TN might be a good bet since it's fast and cheap. If you do color work, then you'd want an 8-bit MVA since they have better color reproduction but are generally slower. (Note: there are 8-bit TN panels as well as 6-bit MVA panels.)
Each pixel is made up of three sub-pixels: red, green, and blue. For an LCD, since a sub-pixel is the fundamental unit, the number of bits is given in terms of per sub-pixel rather than per pixel as with a CRT. So an 8-bit LCD is the same as a 24-bit CRT (and 32-bit as well for most CRTs). This is the number of 0 or 1 values that each sub-pixel can have; essentially, then, 8-bit means each sub-pixel can display 2^8 = 256 different shades, and since there are three sub-pixels per pixel, that's 256^3 = 16777216 = 16.7M (or sometimes you'll see 16.8M) colors per pixel. For a 6-bit LCD, it's 2^6 = 64 shades per sub-pixel, and 64^3 = 262144 colors per pixel.
When the computer passes on the data to the monitor, it devotes 4 bytes per pixel. Each byte is 8 bits of data, for each of the colors. The 4th byte is actually just a dummy byte and just makes things line up (4 bytes are easier to work with than 3). For 8-bit, the values go from 0, 1, 2, ... all the way up to 253, 254, 255 (0 to 255 in increments of 1). For 6-bit, however, since they only have 64 colors to work with, the values are 0, 4, 8, etc. up to 244, 248, 252 (0 to 252 in increments of 4). To display the in-between values, then, there are two main techniques. The older method is dithering. If you wanted to display 193, the closest values are 196 and 192. Then for every 4 pixels, you set one pixel's value to 196 and the three others to 192. The eye perceives them together and it averages out to 193. The newer method is to use something called frame rate control. Essentially it's dithering but done over time instead of over space. For every 4 frames, one frame will be 196 while the other 3 frames are 192. The monitor chooses different pixels to be at 196 every frame so that you don't notice flashing of large parts of the monitor.
So with 6-bit, you lose 253, 254, 255 but can otherwise simulate the other 253 colors (0 to 252). That's 253^3 = 16194277 = 16.2M colors, which isn't as high as 16.7M, but at least it sounds a lot better than 262K. 6-bit panels are naturally faster (the reason has to do with how the pixel decays, I've seen the formula somewhere, I'll try to look it up) so there's less reliance on other techniques to speed up response time like overdrive. If colors look washed out, though, that's more likely because of incorrect color settings (i.e. color profile) I think rather than 6-bit vs 8-bit -- the main gripe with 6-bit is that they produce video artifacts (such as lines in a smooth shade gradient), not about their color gamut; aside from losing 253 to 255, they can simulate the same colors. 6-bit panels are also somewhat cheaper to make than 8-bit.
Is it important? I think it depends on the user. I thought my laptop was 8-bit for over a month because it passed the shading tests on some websites (no artifacts), until I made a 253-255 test and found it failed. It also fails the Anandtech test by the way (it looks like there's circle arcs with center of circle at the upper left), so that's a pretty good test I think (considering other shading tests failed to show that my laptop is 6-bit). Another way is to test to see if you got the values 253-255. That one can be found here:
http://www.amptron.com/chuck/bittest.bmp
If you have a TN panel, the blacks are easy to tell if you look from slightly above, while the whites are easy to tell if you look from slightly below. If you can't see the boundaries for 252-255, then 1) you have a 6-bit or 2) you're not looking at the right angle. If you can see the boundaries for both white and black, then 1) you have an 8-bit or 2) they've finally produced a 6-bit dithering scheme that can generate all 255 colors.
So for me, I used to be against 6-bit (especially with how manufacturers try to cover it up) but now I'm kinda neutral on the issue. I've been using it for about two months now and it hasn't bothered me. Then again, I don't do any graphical processing or the like, but aside from Starcraft my computer usage is mostly office and web stuff, so I've never bought into the need for 4 ms or 8 ms monitors or the like. In the end I think whether or not it's important really depends on how you use your computer. If you game (and don't really care about color quality but just need to frag that guy) then a 6-bit TN might be a good bet since it's fast and cheap. If you do color work, then you'd want an 8-bit MVA since they have better color reproduction but are generally slower. (Note: there are 8-bit TN panels as well as 6-bit MVA panels.)
8-bit color accuracy (16.7 million colors) on LCDs is very important:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/19_lcd_roundup_0605/page6.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/19_lcd_roundup_0605/page7.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/19_lcd_roundup_0605/page6.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/19_lcd_roundup_0605/page7.asp
Uh you can try out my thing to see if your monitor is 6-bit or 8-bit. Testing it out personally is probably the best way for now, since manufacturers don't mind deceiving customers (with junk like "over 16 million colors").
I looked at the Anandtech image with an 8-bit monitor at work today, and it showed the same artifacts as my 6-bit laptop at home. I magnified it and it turns out the artifacts occurred in the image itself. So I'm not sure if it's a good test after all. Maybe something happened during the save, since it's in gif form? I used bitmap with my tests just to make sure there weren't problems with compression.
I looked at the Anandtech image with an 8-bit monitor at work today, and it showed the same artifacts as my 6-bit laptop at home. I magnified it and it turns out the artifacts occurred in the image itself. So I'm not sure if it's a good test after all. Maybe something happened during the save, since it's in gif form? I used bitmap with my tests just to make sure there weren't problems with compression.
yes that's what I was wondering as well...that looked more like gif dithering to me. i can't believe they put a gif up there. I've never seen such bad dithering on my 6-bit panel so I know it's not my panel.
I wondered the same thing, because the dithering showed up even on my Samsung 213T, which I thought was an 8 bit panel (and evidently is supposed to be, according to Samsung).
I think that the image shows how a 6-bit display looks, in this case, the Benq FP931 in the article. I don't think this is "original" image and as such, cannot be used for test purposes. This is my understanding reading the paragraph above the image.
From the AT article:
"You'll notice that our LCDs grab 4.5s pretty much across the board with the exception of the BenQ. Spotting 6-bit LCDs are fairly easy for people who do a lot of graphics work. The image below displays 256 different shades of blue across the top; it represents the 256 hues of blue that are found in an 8-bit sub pixel. No amount of dithering can render this square correctly on a 6-bit LCD."
From the AT article:
"You'll notice that our LCDs grab 4.5s pretty much across the board with the exception of the BenQ. Spotting 6-bit LCDs are fairly easy for people who do a lot of graphics work. The image below displays 256 different shades of blue across the top; it represents the 256 hues of blue that are found in an 8-bit sub pixel. No amount of dithering can render this square correctly on a 6-bit LCD."
Hehheh, funny thing, interpretation. I read that paragraph and I thought it meant that the square would be 8-bit rendered. After all, if it were 6-bit rendered, then it would be rendered correctly by a 6-bit monitor.
Oh well. I got some ideas for using varying shades to do color tests. I'll read up on how to create bmp's (I am NOT going to put in the values pixel by pixel in paint!) and hopefully be able to code something in in a few days. Anyone have some webspace, since I don't really got one of my own? I don't think these forums support uploading images into the threads.
Oh well. I got some ideas for using varying shades to do color tests. I'll read up on how to create bmp's (I am NOT going to put in the values pixel by pixel in paint!) and hopefully be able to code something in in a few days. Anyone have some webspace, since I don't really got one of my own? I don't think these forums support uploading images into the threads.
I use Photoshop, which can read and write just about every format of image in existence. I don't know if the software you use supports this, but if possible, consider the use of true color PNG: lossless compression, which should help you a lot since you're dealing with large solid areas of color (hence better than JPEG and much better than BMP for your specific application), and full color support (hence better than GIF).
Hehe I would, except I don't have Photoshop. That's why I have to resort to using Paint. It should be really easy to do though -- Anandtech's looks to simply be left upper corner white (255, 255, 255), right upper corner blue (0, 0, 255), and both bottom corners black (0, 0, 0), and interpolate the values in between. If a 256 x 256 image size is used, the interpolation would be perfect (add 1 every pixel); that's what I was thinking of doing with code once i figure out how to make bmp's. Note that the possibilities are endless; I would've gone with green for example because green is the most sensitive color to the eye, so hopefully any artifacts would show up best with green. The most sophisticated test I can think of is to generate an image that's full of say 247 and 249 values (both being right next to 248) mixed together. Hopefully with such an image it'd be possible to see the flashes of 244 and 252. Otherwise, it's also possible to do an image of such intermediary values 3 pixels long/wide/L shaped -- since the interpolation is done in units of 4, hopefully units of 3 would make funky things pop up.
I got a newer bitmap by the way, which is the same thing as the test about except that I added 249-251 so that you can see what the difference between the white values are (to better judge if you have 6-bit or 8-bit; if you can see the boundaries clearly there, but not for 252-255, then it's 6-bit). I don't got a place to upload it to though.
I'd hate for you to have to write a program just to make some simple test charts. If I can help you in any way with Photoshop (it sounds like it would be very easy to do what you want with the gradient tool), send me a PM.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter