The god awful gradients on all 8 bit displays are killing me. Absolutely killing me.
Everyone who recommends an 8 bit in 2015 is beginner level. For you enlightened anons, tell me what the best one is so I can purchase it.
>>51634588
Wait wait wait. Wtf are you talking about? Aren't pc monitors and such 24bpp? I presume you're talking about 8bpp and not 8 bit per channel (which is 24bpp and "true color")?
Where the goddamn fuck do you even find an 8bpp display?
>>51634690
I'm talking about 10 bit vs 8 bit which is 99% of what you buy off the shelf at your mall. I don't care for fancy words
>>51634750
So you're talking about 10 bit per channel, or 30 bit displays.
Funny, my 24bit display shows that image of yours with gradients only on the right side. The left side is shown just fine.
>technically correct, simple as fuck jargon is "fancy words"
Ok gramps
>>51634875
Stop pretending like 8 bit (PER CHANNEL) doesnt produce god awful gradients. Like I said in the OP, 8 BIT (PER CHANNEL) is for big noobs
>>51634588
Other than Photoshop there is probably not a single application on your PC right now that utilizes more than 8bit per channel.
>>51634588
That picture looks perfectly fine on my screen.
It's possible you got a display that supports even less than 8bpc.
Learn color space and go away.
>>51635067
madVR can actually output 10bit
>>51635067
I use photoshop a lot, so I know about this already
>>51635121
This OP picture is a just an emulation of the gradient problem that happens constantly on 8 bit monitors vs a 10 bit. Look at this image on an 8 bit
>>51634588
Real 10 bit panels are very expensive and are usually used for color reproduction in movie/video production.
http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/coloredge/cs240/index.html
>>51635201
>inb4 hurr looks perfectly fine on my $150 monitor
>>51634588
Good luck explaining anything video quality related to casuals if it's not MUH 4K.
>>51635201
looks perfectly fine on my $150 monitor
>>51635232
I have cash coming in. Like I said, I can't stand the awful gradients on 8. I just can't do it anymore
>>51635290
Here you go faM
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1178358-REG/eizo_cs270_bk_phx_coloredge_cs270_27_photographer_s_grapher_s.html
>true 10bit
>1440p
>>51635290
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1102772-REG/eizo_cg318_4k_31_4k_4096x2160_ips_lcd.html
>10bit
>4k
>>51635337
>31"
>monitor
>>51635201
But that image doesn't demonstrate it because it fucking skips steps.
On top of that, it has the worst dithering I've ever seen.
Here's the same gradient (31-31-31 on the inside, 0-0-0 on the outside).
Somehow, it doesn't have shitty banding.
I use an NEC PA272W, it's technically a 10-bit panel but I'm running in 8-bit since I don't want to shell out for a Quadro or FirePro card (consumer GPUs can't output 10-bit FYI).
In any case, tones are extremely smooth, and I haven't managed to get banding no matter what.
Chances are that either your calibration is fucked or you're using a display that uses FRC to achieve 8-bit and is actually 6-bit.
>>51635308
>>51635337
I saw 10 bit displays on amazon for 5-6 hundred with lots of reviews
>>51635357
Lel. What a shit screen my phone has. It has alternating bands of green and pink
>>51635357
>>51635201
they just look like black squares to me
>>51635357
>that image doesn't demonstrate it because it fucking skips steps.
It doesn't skip any steps m8. The problem with 8 bit displays is that they can display far less unique values so you see repeating values. On the other hand the 10 bit displays don;'t have this problem.
You're trying to throw me off but it won't work
>>51635374
They might be 8-bit with FRC, a true 10-bit panel display is over $1000 bare minimum.
>>51635363
>but I'm running in 8-bit since I don't want to shell out for a Quadro or FirePro card (consumer GPUs can't output 10-bit FYI).
Radeon doesn't have a problem with this m8
>>51635415
>On the other hand the 10 bit displays don;'t have this problem.
They do, just with four times the color resolution.
>It doesn't skip any steps m8
So that's why it skips from 4 to 6? From 6 to 8? 8 to 10? 14 to 16 and probably a lot of others that I'm not going to bother to check?
Go look at my picture on a 8 bit display, then look at yours, and tell me that mine looks just as shit.
>>51635441
Sure about that? I'm using a Radeon 5750 and by gods I could not get it to output 10-bit from Photoshop.
>>51635451
>So that's why it skips from 4 to 6? From 6 to 8? 8 to 10? 14 to 16 and probably a lot of others that I'm not going to bother to check?
mate...this is a symptom of 8 bit displays. Everyone knows this. You trollin?
OP sounds like an audiophile. Nobody pointed out that he DOESN't know what he's about
>>51635490
Just get firepro or quadro then
>>51635067
>he doesn't dither_out() into x264-10b -- input-depth 16
>>51635415
how about you look at this picture
>>51635357
and stop being retarded
>>51635709
Mate...dithering adds noise to the image to make it appear smooth. Have you read this thread? Nobody's trying to introduce random noise except YOU.
>>51634588
It's like those ads on TV where they show TVs with totally awesome pictures, and they want me to believe those TVs are better than mine, when it's my own TV showing those ads.
Well, that picture is perfectly fine on my 8bpp screen, the "10-bit panel" side looks just perfect. The one on the right looks more like what you'd have on a Game Boy Advance.
10 bit monitor here, graphics card set to output 10 bit (AMD 290, I think all the GCN cards can do it).
>>51635357
Can see banding in Chrome, no banding in Irfanview so I guess that program supports 10 bit.
>>51635201
Has banding in Chrome and Irfanview. I'm gonna go with the other guy and say you fucked up somewhere.
>>51635759
ok senpai
>>51635926
I'm >>51635357
My image isn't even 10 bit.
It's just a plain old 8bpc image.
>>51635926
Mate...for one, amd 290 doesn't output 10 bit images. I did some research and you only get amd deep color with firepro.
2) You're trying to troll and doing a poor job.
>>51636019
Well then that just goes to show how bad the other guys image is. Any idea why Chrome would be showing banding? It's no really noticeable, I have to get right up close, but it's definitely there and I can't see any in Irfanview.
>>51636023
It has an option for 10bpp in Catalyst, whether it's actually doing it I don't know but I do believe it is technically capable of it. The option wasn't there from the beginning and used to only appear with Firepro cards, but at some point AMD decided to let consumer cards have it.
>>51636095
>It has an option for 10bpp in Catalyst, whether it's actually doing it I don't know but I do believe it is technically capable of it. The option wasn't there from the beginning and used to only appear with Firepro cards, but at some point AMD decided to let consumer cards have it.
No, the option is there, but it doesn't actually do true color. Someone had to go on a long email back and forth to confirm that
>>51636191
So what does it actually do? I don't see why AMD would add a fake option, especially when the cards are capable of it, instead of just omitting the option like they did in the past. It is also only available with my 10 bit monitor, my others are stuck at 8.
>>51634750
99% of monitors are actually 6bit with an engine that up converts to 8bit.
But really the faggot is trolling.
>>51635357
>no banding on my el cheapo samsung monitor
>no banding on my dell ultrasharp
>both 6bit panels
>10bit panel fags will defend this
