Costas L wrote:DavidW wrote:High percentage coverage of the NTSC colour space for the latest flat panels monitors suggest that those involved in video production can discard their expensive reference monitors and use a modern flat panel instead. Of course, this is irrelevant for a still photographer.
Why so David ? I have been busy pulling together a nice system for video editing but the benefits are certainly flowing into my still photography as well. I have not updated the monitor yet, but I see getting one that covers a high percentage of the NTSC colour space will benefit both my videos and still images.
If your saying there is a lot of hype out there I agree, and when it comes to 95% of what we do, wide gamuts and contrast ratios are not relevant. Most images make an impact from how they look in the mid tones, but the other 5% are the ones with that little touch of magic where getting it right across the board can help.
We're kind of splitting hairs here.
Wider gamuts are always good, so long as it doesn't come at a cost elsewhere (and it really doesn't seem to with the latest monitors).
However, I would argue that specific percentage coverage of the NTSC colour space doesn't matter if you're not doing work that uses that colour space - which you're not with still photography. It may be a useful metric to compare monitors, but it's not like we're trying to reach a certain threshold to feel confident in getting rid of NTSC reference monitors from our editing suites.
Putting it another way, I don't do any video work. It's not something that particularly interests me, I don't really have any need to produce video and I don't have any video gear other than a webcam which is occasionally used online. I don't therefore mind if my monitor is 90% NTSC or 98% NTSC - though all things being equal I would, of course, prefer the monitor with the widest gamut.