Is contrast ratio more important or color gamut when it comes to picture quality?

[KyberKylo77]

For example would a monitor with 4800:1 contrast ratio, 85% adobe rgb look better than a monitor with 1200:1 contrast ratio, 100% adobe rgb in photoshop? Which would you prioritize having picture quality in mind?

[jaslion]

If you need it for work all you really want is colour accuracy. Which basically means that the colour delta of the monitor is below 2 on average.

 

As for contrast and reproduction. The contrast basically means how many black to white values can it represent for each pixel so to say.

 

The % srgb thing just means how much of the srgb range of colours can the display well display.

 

Now you can have great contrast and 100% srgb space but it can still look terrible if not correctly calibrated. The difference between it and a 45% monitor for example is that the 100% screen CAN be made to look good whilst the 45% screen is by default limited and will not be as good even with calibration.

[KyberKylo77]

2 minutes ago, jaslion said:

If you need it for work all you really want is colour accuracy. Which basically means that the colour delta of the monitor is below 2 on average.

 

As for contrast and reproduction. The contrast basically means how many black to white values can it represent for each pixel so to say.

 

The % srgb thing just means how much of the srgb range of colours can the display well display.

 

Now you can have great contrast and 100% srgb space but it can still look terrible if not correctly calibrated.

I don't really need my monitor for work per say but a good coverage of the adobe rgb colorspace would be appreciated, i dont need the monitor to be color accurate so to say because im only doing digital artwork so its not that  important but a DE of  below 2 would be nice. 

 

Would you prioritize  color coverage or contrast ratio for media consumption and  picture  quality?

 

[Stahlmann]

Depends what you need the monitor for. For professional work i'd look for as close to 100% color gamut coverage of the gamut i need.

 

1 minute ago, KyberKylo77 said:

Would you prioritize  color coverage or contrast ratio for media consumption and  picture  quality?

If it's just content consumption in SDR, then any monitor with 99%+ sRGB coverage and higher contrast will look better than a low contrast (~1000:1 and lower) monitor with a wider color gamut. In this case both monitors are limited to the same color space, so the wide gamut would only contribute oversaturation.

[KyberKylo77]

1 minute ago, Stahlmann said:

Depends what you need the monitor for. For professional work i'd look for as close to 100% color gamut coverage of the gamut i need.

 

But if it's just content consumption in SDR, then any monitor with 99%+ sRGB coverage and higher contrast will look better than a low contrast (~1000:1 and lower) monitor with a wider color gamut.

ohh alright,  that makes sense. What about  in photoshop though? For non professional work,  would you pick  low contrast, high  coverage or high contrast, mediocre coverage? I guess it really doesnt  matter  when it comes  to SRGB content since most VA panels can do  close  to  100% but when it  comes to the adobe rgb color space theyre pretty limited.

[jaslion]

3 minutes ago, KyberKylo77 said:

I don't really need my monitor for work per say but a good coverage of the adobe rgb colorspace would be appreciated, i dont need the monitor to be color accurate so to say because im only doing digital artwork so its not that  important but a DE of  below 2 would be nice. 

 

Would you prioritize  color coverage or contrast ratio for media consumption and  picture  quality?

 

I would not compromise on anything and look for a monitor that applies to my needs ignoring any that don't and then make a compromise with the models I found that meet my needs.

 

I cannot answer your question as this is also a bit of personal preference and you also just simply can not know how it is calibrated out of the box for most monitors. The basic rule for content consumption screens is that 92% srgb spectrum is the minimum.

[jaslion]

Just now, KyberKylo77 said:

ohh alright,  that makes sense. What about  in photoshop though? For non professional work,  would you pick  low contrast, high  coverage or high contrast, mediocre coverage? I guess it really doesnt  matter  when it comes  to SRGB content since most VA panels can do  close  to  100% but when it  comes to the adobe rgb color space theyre pretty limited.

You want and NEED to see the colours so you really should see what you are working with so coverage here.

[KyberKylo77]

1 minute ago, jaslion said:

You want and NEED to see the colours so you really should see what you are working with so coverage here.

ohh ok alright, thats good to know. I was just pretty confused cuz i was browsing the r/monitors subreddit and a lot of people were saying they'd get VA for contrast over most IPS displays since apparently contrast affects picture quality more. I  guess  its  a bit more complicated for me since i need  good coverage considering  the  fact that ill be doing art commissions pretty soon.

[jaslion]

Just now, KyberKylo77 said:

ohh ok alright, thats good to know. I was just pretty confused cuz i was browsing the r/monitors subreddit and a lot of people were saying they'd get VA for contrast over most IPS displays since apparently contrast affects picture quality more. I  guess  its  a bit more complicated for me since i need  good coverage considering  the  fact that ill be doing art commissions pretty soon.

Contrast affects perceived colour quality but coverage is what actually affects it.

[xg32]

6 hours ago, KyberKylo77 said:

.

this one is really personal preference, color coverage does make everything look better, that's why fald/oled exist.

 

Personally i got a headache almost immediately when i saw my friend's g9, and i tend to notice smearing more than backlight bleed so i go ips, what i don't recommend is having both side by side.

 

color coverage on VA tends to fall a bit short (that's why the g7 is so attractive on paper, but i wouldnt trust samsung to not cut corners)

 

Random note, i saw a pg27uq used from a 100% seller about a month ago, no stand but that's fluke

 

professional monitors have been ips for a decade before the current options existed

 

I still lean ips (the QD) but there's obvious bias here lol

 

random note #2: someone's been spam posting a buncha pa242w (updating?) on ebay for 150usd, argb 60hz (i ran cyberpunk on it for a bit for fun), but if you are gonna game on it too then it's still the same rec, the msi.

 

I'm positive my pa272w has better color coverage than the x27 but man does the fald fake it well.

[KyberKylo77]

9 hours ago, xg32 said:

this one is really personal preference, color coverage does make everything look better, that's why fald/oled exist.

 

Personally i got a headache almost immediately when i saw my friend's g9, and i tend to notice smearing more than backlight bleed so i go ips, what i don't recommend is having both side by side.

 

color coverage on VA tends to fall a bit short (that's why the g7 is so attractive on paper, but i wouldnt trust samsung to not cut corners)

 

Random note, i saw a pg27uq used from a 100% seller about a month ago, no stand but that's fluke

 

professional monitors have been ips for a decade before the current options existed

 

I still lean ips (the QD) but there's obvious bias here lol

 

random note #2: someone's been spam posting a buncha pa242w (updating?) on ebay for 150usd, argb 60hz (i ran cyberpunk on it for a bit for fun), but if you are gonna game on it too then it's still the same rec, the msi.

 

I'm positive my pa272w has better color coverage than the x27 but man does the fald fake it well.

Ohh ok,  guess ill have to ask for side by side comparisons the next time i visit a tech store. 

 

But given the option, if you were to solely use a monitor for media consumption, would you go with a 100% srgb high contrast VA or 100%srgb low contrast ips (ignore the smearing issues)

 

[xg32]

if it's 100% srgb clamped, i'd pick the VA

 

personally ive been using argb for main and srgb low brightness for text only

[KyberKylo77]

12 minutes ago, xg32 said:

if it's 100% srgb clamped, i'd pick the VA

 

personally ive been using argb for main and srgb low brightness for text only

wait sorry but what do you mean youve been using adobe rgb for main? Isnt that colorspace limited to photoshop and other adobe apps? Sorry the whole color space thing is pretty confusing to me since im relatively new to it.

 

[xg32]

9 minutes ago, KyberKylo77 said:

wait sorry but what do you mean youve been using adobe rgb for main? Isnt that colorspace limited to photoshop and other adobe apps? Sorry the whole color space thing is pretty confusing to me since im relatively new to it.

 

the content itself is srgb based, but using a monitor capable of 100% argb still makes it look alot better, iirc 100% argb is about 80%+ rec 2020 which is for hdr (not totally caught up on this one), 

 

Think of it this way, a monitor should at least be able to do 100%~ or slightly more srgb (which kicks the g5 out). the purpose of srgb mode is to reduce eye strain and for color accuracy only. For content consumption, i prefer to get an argb monitor and clamp down from there til it looks nice and comfortable for me, not color accurate.

 

Take the pa272w for example, it's capable of 110% argb, my red green and blue and all slightly under 50, the x27 also has 100%+ argb (can't find the exact number but it's worse than the pa272w, but because of hdr the red green and blue in control panel are all in the 30s. Again, not color accurate, but they both look the same side by side, except for fald and black.

 

Then i have a srgb mode at 80nits for text.

[KyberKylo77]

1 hour ago, xg32 said:

the content itself is srgb based, but using a monitor capable of 100% argb still makes it look alot better, iirc 100% argb is about 80%+ rec 2020 which is for hdr (not totally caught up on this one), 

 

Think of it this way, a monitor should at least be able to do 100%~ or slightly more srgb (which kicks the g5 out). the purpose of srgb mode is to reduce eye strain and for color accuracy only. For content consumption, i prefer to get an argb monitor and clamp down from there til it looks nice and comfortable for me, not color accurate.

 

Take the pa272w for example, it's capable of 110% argb, my red green and blue and all slightly under 50, the x27 also has 100%+ argb (can't find the exact number but it's worse than the pa272w, but because of hdr the red green and blue in control panel are all in the 30s. Again, not color accurate, but they both look the same side by side, except for fald and black.

 

Then i have a srgb mode at 80nits for text.

ohh ok, that makes sense. So personally you enjoy the oversaturation? I heard that it bothers some people.

[xg32]

58 minutes ago, KyberKylo77 said:

ohh ok, that makes sense. So personally you enjoy the oversaturation? I heard that it bothers some people.

yap, not too ridiculous though, someone took a picture of the QD out of the box and it was so red that i laughed.

 

i think the reason VA looks "better" is similar but to a less degree of how some tvs have postprocessing to make it pop, if everything was clamped to srgb sales would drop like a rock.

[Stahlmann]

43 minutes ago, xg32 said:

yap, not too ridiculous though, someone took a picture of the QD out of the box and it was so red that i laughed.

Another reason to buy a colorimeter and calibrate your monitors yourself. This way you're completely independent of the factory calibration.

 

43 minutes ago, xg32 said:

 

i think the reason VA looks "better" is similar but to a less degree of how some tvs have postprocessing to make it pop, if everything was clamped to srgb sales would drop like a rock.

And you would see tons of forum posts about "why does my monitor look washed out?", just because everyone is used to 95% DCI-P3 monitors running completely oversaturated sRGB content.

 

I personally use my displays in the correct color gamut rather than oversaturated. But i'd guess i'm a minority here.