Digital Vibrance, amazing!

[Ricemarine]

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus

Originally posted by: n7
Damnit, i've never even heard of it before.

Now that i have an ATi card, i find out ...

Anyone know if ATi has the same sorta thing?

I dont think so, i know ATI Tool doesnt.....

What monitor do you have, sometimes the monitor has the same sort of settings (itd probably be called Vibrance, or something along those lines)

ATI has no such thing as close to digital vibrance. ATI has no color saturation either, except for video.

Yes, nvidia makes everything look THAT MUCH BETTER with digital vibrance... Which is why I'm trying to trade my x800xt for a 6800 ultra

 

[Polish3d]

I can try to do so if no one else does. Any way to take screenshots w/o dling a specifc prog for it? Also I have account anywhere to upload

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I can try to do so if no one else does. Any way to take screenshots w/o dling a specifc prog for it? Also I have account anywhere to upload

just hit print screen and paste it into MS paint

upload to site in sig

 

[Polish3d]

Sweet!

Here we go:

Here
is the album, unfortunately you can't really see the difference although I assure you there is one between digit. vibrance on and off.

 

[PurdueRy]

Great...so you overdrive colors....who cares?

Honestly, people see brighter colors and they are amazed, when really all they are seeing is worse color accuracy.

Hey look theres a bright shiny object :oints::

 

[DLBlank]

omg i forgot about this, i messed with it when i set up my new computer but set it back to default becuse i had to install more drives but never whent back and did any thing. I set it to like med and after about 3 hrs set it back and man it looked like crap. Im glad it got NVIDIA

 

[Kaspian]

Originally posted by: n7
Damnit, i've never even heard of it before.Now that i have an ATi card, i find out ...

Anyone know if ATi has the same sorta thing?

That's been out for quite a while now.

 

[Ike0069]

It works on my CRT also and I really like it.

Who gives a sh!t about color accuracy if being less accurate looks better? I'm not a professional photo editor.

Anyways, thanks OP for the tip. I've got a second PC using a 9700, and now I think it looks like crap, LOL.

 

[Continuity28]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Frackal
I can try to do so if no one else does. Any way to take screenshots w/o dling a specifc prog for it? Also I have account anywhere to upload

just hit print screen and paste it into MS paint

upload to site in sig

You can't screenshot this. Watch, try it yourself. Turn Digital Vibrance off and make a screenshot, then make a screenshot with Digital Vibrance completely high.

Now turn Digital Vibrance off again (as most PCs dont have it) and both screenshots will look exactly the same.

The reason is because only you can see it on your monitor, it's only changing the signal to your monitor.

 

[Cuular]

ATI doesn't usually need it because their picture is already "vibrant" and colorful compared to the nvidia picture. If you compare a non-digital vibrance messed with nvidia display side by side with an ATI one you will see it. Nvidia added that for a reason. Their default color settings are somewhat "washed out" looking. ATI has similiar boosting capabilities in their color correction screen, it just requires you to set 2 or 3 settings, instead of a single slider that does them for you.

 

[mezrah]

mmmmm...delicious

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Cuular
ATI doesn't usually need it because their picture is already "vibrant" and colorful compared to the nvidia picture. If you compare a non-digital vibrance messed with nvidia display side by side with an ATI one you will see it. Nvidia added that for a reason. Their default color settings are somewhat "washed out" looking. ATI has similiar boosting capabilities in their color correction screen, it just requires you to set 2 or 3 settings, instead of a single slider that does them for you.

Also, as noted by several posters, Digital Vibrance screws badly with the accuracy of your color rendering. It's along the lines of the 'red push' that TV manufacturers use to make displays look 'better' sitting in a showroom.

If you put two monitors side-by-side, people will naturally prefer the one that is brighter or more highly saturated (and, to some extent, the one that has a 'warmer' color palette). If you ever check out the TVs on display in Best Buy / Circuit City / whatever, you'll generally find that the brightness, contrast, and color saturation are all cranked WAY up. While this gives it a nice 'wow' factor (especially if it's sitting next to another set that's not totally out of whack), it greatly reduces the monitor's ability to accurately display colors. If you get a calibration DVD like AVIA or Digital Video Essentials, you can see how bad the default settings make them look (I'm sure it would also show how much DV is messing with the color settings).

If you like seeing wrong (but more highly saturated) colors, DV is great. If you prefer actually seeing things rendered as they should be, not so much.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Cuular
ATI doesn't usually need it because their picture is already "vibrant" and colorful compared to the nvidia picture. If you compare a non-digital vibrance messed with nvidia display side by side with an ATI one you will see it. Nvidia added that for a reason. Their default color settings are somewhat "washed out" looking. ATI has similiar boosting capabilities in their color correction screen, it just requires you to set 2 or 3 settings, instead of a single slider that does them for you.

Also, as noted by several posters, Digital Vibrance screws badly with the accuracy of your color rendering. It's along the lines of the 'red push' that TV manufacturers use to make displays look 'better' sitting in a showroom.

If you put two monitors side-by-side, people will naturally prefer the one that is brighter or more highly saturated (and, to some extent, the one that has a 'warmer' color palette). If you ever check out the TVs on display in Best Buy / Circuit City / whatever, you'll generally find that the brightness, contrast, and color saturation are all cranked WAY up. While this gives it a nice 'wow' factor (especially if it's sitting next to another set that's not totally out of whack), it greatly reduces the monitor's ability to accurately display colors. If you get a calibration DVD like AVIA or Digital Video Essentials, you can see how bad the default settings make them look (I'm sure it would also show how much DV is messing with the color settings).

If you like seeing wrong (but more highly saturated) colors, DV is great. If you prefer actually seeing things rendered as they should be, not so much.

QFT

Finally someone who agrees with me! Some TV manufacturers that normally didn't crank the brightness are now coming out with a "overbright" mode that will be the default so thats the way it will be shown on the showroom floor. This is due to over manufacturers doing the same thing in order to get that initial attraction

Sony is majorly guilty of this

 

[Vernor]

'Color accuracy' is highly overrated.

 

[orangat]

Wear tinted sunglasses so everything looks good 100% of the time.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Vernor
'Color accuracy' is highly overrated.

Color brightness is highly overrated. I dont want peoples skin to look like they were bakin in the sun all year long if they weren't. I don't want grass to look like its GLOWING. I don't want water thats not perfectly blue to look perfectly blue. I want to see what I should be seeing.

These are all problems I have seen on TV's with setting set to look "good"

 

[BigCoolJesus]

Originally posted by: rleemhui

Originally posted by: Vernor
'Color accuracy' is highly overrated.

Color brightness is highly overrated. I dont want peoples skin to look like they were bakin in the sun all year long if they weren't. I don't want grass to look like its GLOWING. I don't want water thats not perfectly blue to look perfectly blue. I want to see what I should be seeing.

These are all problems I have seen on TV's with setting set to look "good"

Yea, color accuracy is over rated

i love my digital vibrance

 

[Vernor]

Except my windows desktop is not supposed to look life-like.

Nether do most games.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Vernor
Except my windows desktop is not supposed to look life-like.

Nether do most games.

It's not a matter of looking "life-like" or not, it's a matter of having your look the way they were designed to look. High levels of DV make the image VERY oversaturated.

It's very similar to taking the color control on your TV and cranking it all the way up. Sure, it looks "more colorful", but that doesn't make it look *better*. It makes the color rendering inaccurate, and if you turn it up enough, you start to crush the color values at the high end -- you can no longer distinguish between things that are supposed to be completely saturated and things that are only partially saturated.

 

[xtknight]

Chances are the person who made my Windows skin or near 90% of the content I see on my screen did not have his monitor calibrated either. In that case, when you calibrate your monitor, that doesn't mean you're making the CONTENT how it was intended to look. It just means that you're making your monitor display correctly what it has received. That still doesn't mean that's how the artist intended it to look. Big difference here, and it is grossly overrated.

 

[rbV5]

near 90% of the content I see on my screen did not have his monitor calibrated either

I doubt that, most of the designers, content creators or graphic artists I know are somewhat anal about their color calibration and display Image Quality. If anything proper display color calibration and geometry is grossly underrated, most users don't have a clue.

That said, what is pleasing to anyone's eye is subjective. Even at my house, almost everyone loves to crank DV when running Nvidia video cards in the rigs, I'm not a big fan of "torch mode" myself.

 

[Ike0069]

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus
Yea, color accuracy is over rated

i love my digital vibrance

:thumbsup:

 

[biostud]

The extra color is not that important, but it makes text look sharper on CRT's.

 

[Polish3d]

Jeez guys just crank it up to low, just a touch of it makes everything look vibrant rather than what will now appear to be fairly dull. It doesn't change the color accuracy THAT much but looks quite a bit better

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Jeez guys just crank it up to low, just a touch of it makes everything look vibrant rather than what will now appear to be fairly dull. It doesn't change the color accuracy THAT much but looks quite a bit better

OK, so I lied, say most artists do calibrate their monitors then...oh well. I find the colors to stick out more with DV on, so in that case I want it to be the way I think it should be. I don't think people who make web pages calibrate their monitors though, but what do I know? In reality, I can't stand anything above digital vibrance low because it makes my ClearType fonts look like a rainbow. :frown: One reason is I have an LCD, and it's near impossible (if not impossible) to calibrate an LCD to the amount you can a CRT, unless you have an $1000 Eizo. For me, this is the quick way out of making my colors pop out. I remember doing calibration tests on my old CRT and it actually did look pretty good.