{ "numMessagesInTopic": 15, "nextInTime": 1217, "senderId": "pmXy-nqFiAmtDdgC8vHAClKUdxGj9bjv73xnMo1CI8axutnwi2X3pFTv5Umj_A1sxhOp_30MWFvvGrY2stJYmx8yIAAfWKgo3xuCHRXPcA", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: New screen: 56" lcd 3840 x 2160", "from": ""fluppeteer" <yahoo@...>", "authorName": "fluppeteer", "msgSnippet": "... Okay, I have to admit that I m out of my area of (limited) expertise here. Presumably the gamut of a DLP depends almost entirely on a combination of choice", "msgId": 1216, "profile": "fluppeteer", "topicId": 1205, "spamInfo": { "reason": "12", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 192443393, "messageBody": "
> >Presuming by "DLP" you mean cinema projectors, whose brightOkay, I have to admit that I'm out of my area of (limited)
\n> >idea was it to give them a standard gamut *other* than rec709?
\n>
\n> The larger color gamut is native to DLP and is one of the
\n> primary reasons why color grading on DLPs is feasible.
\n
\n
> You wouldn't necessarily want to grade for film with rec709.In a "you know you've been hacking too long" moment, I had a
\n
\n> Additionally, the point was to make it more like film which
\n> why spaces like P3 on DLP are biased more towards a warmer
\n> film look. Would you rather be consistent or have the lowest
\n> common denominator color space? (rec709/srgb)
\n
\n
> As for a more forward looking vision, the DCI spec is*Nod*. Or, more specifically, presumably they need to use more
\n> instead using CIE XYZ so that the color space is independent
\n> of the output device and is future proofed in the sense that
\n> larger gamut devices are expected in the future.
\n> The down side is the CIE XYZ isn't a very efficient for storage.
\n
\n
> >I guess this means I've just learnt something else about cinemaLittle brain... melting...
\n> >projectors... :-)
\n>
\n> and it keeps changing :)
\n
\n
> I'm not sure about this particular monitor but yes rec709 would*Nod*. It'd be nice to learn that different filters and
\n> be the right choice if it were a TV. It's not clear yet what the
\n> purpose will be but I'm guessing that different companies will
\n> productize it differently.
\n
\n
> Westinghouse will likely do a TV version but I'm guessingSee my above rant about whether the calibration would be
\n> others might take a different approach. There could always be
\n> an option for rec709 or a wider gamut space. if you're
\n> calibrating your monitors anyway, it shouldn't matter.
\n
\n
> bad for the consumer, good for the content creators :)Indeed. :-) (Hence I'd love a CG220 - but not as a TV!)
\n
\n
> >*Nod*. I can see it being useful for [4k preview]. AlthoughThat's the $1E6 question, of course - what *is* it for? Oh
\n> >if that's the target market, it's strange they didn't add a
\n> >few extra pixels for the full 4096x2160 (other than problems
\n> >specifying it in EDID).
\n>
\n> I don't think it's a target market for them (or at least I
\n> didn't get that impression).
\n
\n
> The sony sxrd 4k looks really good although it remains to beThe UK is pretty backward in that department (at least, the
\n> seen how many will actually get installed in theaters this year.
\n
\n