32 bit monitor

[Andreas Bruckbauer]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

We noticed that our confocal images look amazing (fine details well
resolved) as long as they are viewed with the monitor belonging to the
microscope, but as soon as we open them on our PCs or Macs they look just
normal (fine detail missing).
The monitor at the Zeiss mic is a HP ZR30W a pretty expensive model. It
seems to support 32 bit colours which would give 12 bit or 4096 grey steps
for each of the primary colours. Not sure if this is the secret behind the
good looking images but has anyone experience using such monitors to display
images? I would think that the graphic card, operating system and image
analysis software have to be capable of doing so, which programs would do this?

Did i miss an important development in computer hardware or is there another
reason for the amazing looking images? Any suggestions welcome.

[Gerhard Holst]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Dear Andreas,

I doubt that the connected monitor has 12 bit gray levels. I only know about some monochrome displays for radiologists that deliver 10bit. Maybe the system of the confocal does some contrast enhancement. Or, in case your image data are 12 bit or more in reality, the Zeiss monitor does a proper scaling from the original data to the 8bit world of the display. Did you try to optimize the scaling on your standard PC or Mac screens? With scaling I mean, how do you send the 12bit or more image data to your 8 bit world?

with best regards,

Gerhard Holst
_______________________________

Dr. Gerhard Holst
Science & Research
PCO AG
Donaupark 11
93309 Kelheim, Germany
fon [phone]
fax [phone]
mob [phone]
[hidden email]
www.pco.de

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Andreas Bruckbauer
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2013 16:52
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: 32 bit monitor

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

We noticed that our confocal images look amazing (fine details well
resolved) as long as they are viewed with the monitor belonging to the
microscope, but as soon as we open them on our PCs or Macs they look just
normal (fine detail missing).
The monitor at the Zeiss mic is a HP ZR30W a pretty expensive model. It
seems to support 32 bit colours which would give 12 bit or 4096 grey steps
for each of the primary colours. Not sure if this is the secret behind the
good looking images but has anyone experience using such monitors to display
images? I would think that the graphic card, operating system and image
analysis software have to be capable of doing so, which programs would do this?

Did i miss an important development in computer hardware or is there another
reason for the amazing looking images? Any suggestions welcome.

[Keith Morris]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Andreas

Assuming that your PC or MAC monitors are set to 32-bit true-colour under
Display, Adjust Resolution, Advanced Settings (windows 7), the problem is
probably the PC monitor isn't set up correctly (colour, brightness,
contrast). I'd get an x-rite i1 Display Pro professional display calibration
device to calibrate your office monitors (xritephoto.com) - it costs about
£150 and can generally calibrate all your screens automatically assuming
they are fairly modern (the sensor unit rests on the monitor and adjusts it
all correctly for you). Then in theory all your PC monitors will be
calibrated to display colours correctly, so the image should look similar on
any of them, subject to the basic quality of the monitor. I'd also
investigate the likes of a £400 2560x1440 pixel 27" Dell U2713HM IPS screen
monitor for your main office Windows PC which can display 1024x1024 confocal
images natively at 1 pixel per 1 pixel. Use Zen/LSM Image Browser to view
your Zeiss raw lsm confocal files to ensure the software isn't down-sampling
the image in some way. I doubt the graphics card is the problem, assuming
it's fairly modern graphics card/GPU and it's been setup correctly.

Regards

Keith

http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1454&catid=109&action=over
view

-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr Keith J Morris
Cellular Imaging Core,
The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics,
Roosevelt Drive,
Oxford,
OX3 7BN,
United Kingdom.

Tel:  +44   ( 0 ) 1865  287568
Email:   [hidden email]
Webpage: www.well.ox.ac.uk/microscopy-facilities

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Andreas Bruckbauer
Sent: 13 June 2013 15:52
To: [hidden email]
Subject: 32 bit monitor

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

We noticed that our confocal images look amazing (fine details well
resolved) as long as they are viewed with the monitor belonging to the
microscope, but as soon as we open them on our PCs or Macs they look just
normal (fine detail missing).
The monitor at the Zeiss mic is a HP ZR30W a pretty expensive model. It
seems to support 32 bit colours which would give 12 bit or 4096 grey steps
for each of the primary colours. Not sure if this is the secret behind the
good looking images but has anyone experience using such monitors to display
images? I would think that the graphic card, operating system and image
analysis software have to be capable of doing so, which programs would do
this?

Did i miss an important development in computer hardware or is there another
reason for the amazing looking images? Any suggestions welcome.

[Mark Cannell-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

'32 bit' could be rgb+alpha… I don't think Windoze goes higher than 8 bits per channel?
The resolution might relate to the number of pixels your display has. If you have a image of 2048x2048 you need an unusual monitor to display it at full resolution.

Cheers


On 13/06/2013, at 4:52 PM, Keith Morris <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi Andreas
>
> Assuming that your PC or MAC monitors are set to 32-bit true-colour under
> Display, Adjust Resolution, Advanced Settings (windows 7), the problem is
> probably the PC monitor isn't set up correctly (colour, brightness,
> contrast). I'd get an x-rite i1 Display Pro professional display calibration
> device to calibrate your office monitors (xritephoto.com) - it costs about
> £150 and can generally calibrate all your screens automatically assuming
> they are fairly modern (the sensor unit rests on the monitor and adjusts it
> all correctly for you). Then in theory all your PC monitors will be
> calibrated to display colours correctly, so the image should look similar on
> any of them, subject to the basic quality of the monitor. I'd also
> investigate the likes of a £400 2560x1440 pixel 27" Dell U2713HM IPS screen
> monitor for your main office Windows PC which can display 1024x1024 confocal
> images natively at 1 pixel per 1 pixel. Use Zen/LSM Image Browser to view
> your Zeiss raw lsm confocal files to ensure the software isn't down-sampling
> the image in some way. I doubt the graphics card is the problem, assuming
> it's fairly modern graphics card/GPU and it's been setup correctly.
>
> Regards
>
> Keith
>
> http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1454&catid=109&action=over
> view
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Keith J Morris
> Cellular Imaging Core,
> The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics,
> Roosevelt Drive,
> Oxford,
> OX3 7BN,
> United Kingdom.
>
> Tel:  +44   ( 0 ) 1865  287568
> Email:   [hidden email]
> Webpage: www.well.ox.ac.uk/microscopy-facilities
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Andreas Bruckbauer
> Sent: 13 June 2013 15:52
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: 32 bit monitor
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> We noticed that our confocal images look amazing (fine details well
> resolved) as long as they are viewed with the monitor belonging to the
> microscope, but as soon as we open them on our PCs or Macs they look just
> normal (fine detail missing).
> The monitor at the Zeiss mic is a HP ZR30W a pretty expensive model. It
> seems to support 32 bit colours which would give 12 bit or 4096 grey steps
> for each of the primary colours. Not sure if this is the secret behind the
> good looking images but has anyone experience using such monitors to display
> images? I would think that the graphic card, operating system and image
> analysis software have to be capable of doing so, which programs would do
> this?
>
> Did i miss an important development in computer hardware or is there another
> reason for the amazing looking images? Any suggestions welcome.

Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
School of Physiology &  Pharmacology
Medical Sciences Building
University of Bristol
Bristol
BS8 1TD UK

[hidden email]

[Tim Feinstein-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Yes, each channel still has 8 bits (8 x 4 = 32).  AFAIK you cannot buy a commercial monitor that displays more than 8 bits in any one channel.  

Q for Andreas: Do you use any visualization software on the scope computer other than the proprietary package from Zeiss?  If I had to guess I'd suggest that Zen 'cleans up' images a little on-screen in a way that does not carry over when you open the same image in a non-allied software package.  I noticed that Elements for Nikon does this, for example smoothing the edges of pixels at > 100% zoom and de-noising a little.  Open your images in ImageJ on that same computer and see whether they look substantially better than ImageJ somewhere else.  My bet is that you just need to apply a little contrast, noise filtering and (DANGER Will Robinson) gamma in third party software to reproduce what you see in Zen.  

All the best,


TF

Timothy Feinstein, PhD
Visiting Research Associate
Laboratory for GPCR Biology
Dept. of Pharmacology & Chemical Biology
University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine
BST W1301, 200 Lothrop St.
Pittsburgh, PA  15261

On Jun 13, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Mark Cannell wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> '32 bit' could be rgb+alpha… I don't think Windoze goes higher than 8 bits per channel?
> The resolution might relate to the number of pixels your display has. If you have a image of 2048x2048 you need an unusual monitor to display it at full resolution.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On 13/06/2013, at 4:52 PM, Keith Morris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>>
>> Hi Andreas
>>
>> Assuming that your PC or MAC monitors are set to 32-bit true-colour under
>> Display, Adjust Resolution, Advanced Settings (windows 7), the problem is
>> probably the PC monitor isn't set up correctly (colour, brightness,
>> contrast). I'd get an x-rite i1 Display Pro professional display calibration
>> device to calibrate your office monitors (xritephoto.com) - it costs about
>> £150 and can generally calibrate all your screens automatically assuming
>> they are fairly modern (the sensor unit rests on the monitor and adjusts it
>> all correctly for you). Then in theory all your PC monitors will be
>> calibrated to display colours correctly, so the image should look similar on
>> any of them, subject to the basic quality of the monitor. I'd also
>> investigate the likes of a £400 2560x1440 pixel 27" Dell U2713HM IPS screen
>> monitor for your main office Windows PC which can display 1024x1024 confocal
>> images natively at 1 pixel per 1 pixel. Use Zen/LSM Image Browser to view
>> your Zeiss raw lsm confocal files to ensure the software isn't down-sampling
>> the image in some way. I doubt the graphics card is the problem, assuming
>> it's fairly modern graphics card/GPU and it's been setup correctly.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1454&catid=109&action=over
>> view
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Dr Keith J Morris
>> Cellular Imaging Core,
>> The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics,
>> Roosevelt Drive,
>> Oxford,
>> OX3 7BN,
>> United Kingdom.
>>
>> Tel:  +44   ( 0 ) 1865  287568
>> Email:   [hidden email]
>> Webpage: www.well.ox.ac.uk/microscopy-facilities
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>> Behalf Of Andreas Bruckbauer
>> Sent: 13 June 2013 15:52
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: 32 bit monitor
>>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>>
>> We noticed that our confocal images look amazing (fine details well
>> resolved) as long as they are viewed with the monitor belonging to the
>> microscope, but as soon as we open them on our PCs or Macs they look just
>> normal (fine detail missing).
>> The monitor at the Zeiss mic is a HP ZR30W a pretty expensive model. It
>> seems to support 32 bit colours which would give 12 bit or 4096 grey steps
>> for each of the primary colours. Not sure if this is the secret behind the
>> good looking images but has anyone experience using such monitors to display
>> images? I would think that the graphic card, operating system and image
>> analysis software have to be capable of doing so, which programs would do
>> this?
>>
>> Did i miss an important development in computer hardware or is there another
>> reason for the amazing looking images? Any suggestions welcome.
>
> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
> School of Physiology &  Pharmacology
> Medical Sciences Building
> University of Bristol
> Bristol
> BS8 1TD UK
>
> [hidden email]

[Hagen, Brian]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

I think I know what is going on if you are using ZEN; the reason the images look so good is because you have interpolation ON. Look in the maintain tab of Zen, LSM options, under Image Display.

If you want your images to look exactly like they do on the monitor, you need to export the image as "contents of Image Window".

Hope it helps,
Brian Hagen

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Andreas Bruckbauer
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:52 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: 32 bit monitor

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

We noticed that our confocal images look amazing (fine details well
resolved) as long as they are viewed with the monitor belonging to the microscope, but as soon as we open them on our PCs or Macs they look just normal (fine detail missing).
The monitor at the Zeiss mic is a HP ZR30W a pretty expensive model. It seems to support 32 bit colours which would give 12 bit or 4096 grey steps for each of the primary colours. Not sure if this is the secret behind the good looking images but has anyone experience using such monitors to display images? I would think that the graphic card, operating system and image analysis software have to be capable of doing so, which programs would do this?

Did i miss an important development in computer hardware or is there another reason for the amazing looking images? Any suggestions welcome.

[Arvonn Tully]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Generally "32 bit" is 8 bit Red, 8 bit Green, 8 bit Blue, 8 bit Alpha = 32
bits per pixel.

In fact, if you have the proper monitor, the proper graphics card, it is
possible to run    32 bit color as: 10 bit Red, 10 bit Green, 10 bit Blue,
2 bit Alpha, and Proper cable (Display Port or Dual Link DVI, or HDMI 1.3a
or later)

Presuming the Graphics card + Graphics card drive + Monitor support it,
Windows allows per application Bit depth - thus it is possible with to have
40 bit color, aka, 10 bit Red, Blue, Green and Alpha, and even  48 bit
Color ... 12 bits per channel.

To my research, only 10 bit per color is supported by current LCD monitors,
there were old SGI graphics adapters which supported 12 bit per channel,
not sure how it was actually displayed or used..

To be fair, I think there are roughly between 5 and 10 current LCD monitors
which offer true 10 bit per pixel color, most conventional monitors are
truly only displaying 6 bit per pixel color, and most of us are none the
wiser.



----



On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Mark Cannell <[hidden email]>wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> '32 bit' could be rgb+alpha… I don't think Windoze goes higher than 8 bits
> per channel?
> The resolution might relate to the number of pixels your display has. If
> you have a image of 2048x2048 you need an unusual monitor to display it at
> full resolution.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On 13/06/2013, at 4:52 PM, Keith Morris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > *****
> >
> > Hi Andreas
> >
> > Assuming that your PC or MAC monitors are set to 32-bit true-colour under
> > Display, Adjust Resolution, Advanced Settings (windows 7), the problem is
> > probably the PC monitor isn't set up correctly (colour, brightness,
> > contrast). I'd get an x-rite i1 Display Pro professional display
> calibration
> > device to calibrate your office monitors (xritephoto.com) - it costs
> about
> > £150 and can generally calibrate all your screens automatically assuming
> > they are fairly modern (the sensor unit rests on the monitor and adjusts
> it
> > all correctly for you). Then in theory all your PC monitors will be
> > calibrated to display colours correctly, so the image should look
> similar on
> > any of them, subject to the basic quality of the monitor. I'd also
> > investigate the likes of a £400 2560x1440 pixel 27" Dell U2713HM IPS
> screen
> > monitor for your main office Windows PC which can display 1024x1024
> confocal
> > images natively at 1 pixel per 1 pixel. Use Zen/LSM Image Browser to view
> > your Zeiss raw lsm confocal files to ensure the software isn't
> down-sampling
> > the image in some way. I doubt the graphics card is the problem, assuming
> > it's fairly modern graphics card/GPU and it's been setup correctly.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1454&catid=109&action=over
> > view
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Dr Keith J Morris
> > Cellular Imaging Core,
> > The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics,
> > Roosevelt Drive,
> > Oxford,
> > OX3 7BN,
> > United Kingdom.
> >
> > Tel:  +44   ( 0 ) 1865  287568
> > Email:   [hidden email]
> > Webpage: www.well.ox.ac.uk/microscopy-facilities
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On
> > Behalf Of Andreas Bruckbauer
> > Sent: 13 June 2013 15:52
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: 32 bit monitor
> >
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > *****
> >
> > We noticed that our confocal images look amazing (fine details well
> > resolved) as long as they are viewed with the monitor belonging to the
> > microscope, but as soon as we open them on our PCs or Macs they look just
> > normal (fine detail missing).
> > The monitor at the Zeiss mic is a HP ZR30W a pretty expensive model. It
> > seems to support 32 bit colours which would give 12 bit or 4096 grey
> steps
> > for each of the primary colours. Not sure if this is the secret behind
> the
> > good looking images but has anyone experience using such monitors to
> display
> > images? I would think that the graphic card, operating system and image
> > analysis software have to be capable of doing so, which programs would do
> > this?
> >
> > Did i miss an important development in computer hardware or is there
> another
> > reason for the amazing looking images? Any suggestions welcome.
>
> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
> School of Physiology &  Pharmacology
> Medical Sciences Building
> University of Bristol
> Bristol
> BS8 1TD UK
>
> [hidden email]
>

[Vitaly Boyko]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Andreas,

I am bit confused here. Human eye is only 5 bit per color, isn't it? Though it can see millions of colors, but only 25-30 shades of the same color (up to 5 bit). The rest what you see is something else...

Cheers,

Vitaly



________________________________
 From: Andreas Bruckbauer <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:52 AM
Subject: 32 bit monitor
 

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

We noticed that our confocal images look amazing (fine details well
resolved) as long as they are viewed with the monitor belonging to the
microscope, but as soon as we open them on our PCs or Macs they look just
normal (fine detail missing).
The monitor at the Zeiss mic is a HP ZR30W a pretty expensive model. It
seems to support 32 bit colours which would give 12 bit or 4096 grey steps
for each of the primary colours. Not sure if this is the secret behind the
good looking images but has anyone experience using such monitors to display
images? I would think that the graphic card, operating system and image
analysis software have to be capable of doing so, which programs would do this?

Did i miss an important development in computer hardware or is there another
reason for the amazing looking images? Any suggestions welcome.

[Jerry (Gerald) Sedgewick]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

There are likely several reasons the HP ZR30W shows details where these
are lost on the other monitors. One was mentioned: probably some kind of
interpolation of the image like what is seen in Image J (especially
noticeable when images are zoomed in and --what?-- no discrete
pixels!).  The other is that most laptop monitors display at 6
bits/channel.  And don't get confused about the 32-bit: it's generally
3, 8-bit channels and an 8-bit alpha channel.

The other reason comes with the viewing angle, which in common language,
"sucks" for most monitors.  When your head is slightly off-angle, the
screen darkens and colors are incorrect. See for how bad your monitor is
by going to http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/viewing_angle.php.  Monitor
viewing angles of 180 degrees or better aid with viewing the image,
since a person does not generally look at an image while moving their
head around the screen.  The HP ZR30W is at 178 degrees.

The technology, as well, determines color fidelity:

TN = Twisted Nematic.  This is the technology used for most laptops.  
These are fast for refresh, but have narrow viewing angles, low
brightness, and inaccurate color reproduction.

VA = Vertical Alignment.  Better color correction and viewing angles
than TN and generally higher brightness, but lag with refresh rates.

IPS = In Plane Switching.  This is the technology for the HP ZR30W.  
These have wide viewing angles and produce the most accurate colors, but
blacks aren't as deep as VA panels.  These are the slowest in regard to
response time, but on a confocal that isn't critical.

  PLS = Plane-line Switching.  Developed by Samsung with characteristics
matching IPS except for deeper blacks.

In the ideal world, as those concerned about what displays the visual
data, we would all have at least one decent monitor with good color
reproduction and wide viewing angles calibrated with a hardware device
and placed in a darkened room. It would use technology one step up from
Twisted Nematic (TN).

I have no commercial interest with monitor manufacturers, though I'd
love to get my hands on a Eizo monitor.

Jerry Sedgewick








On 6/13/2013 9:52 AM, Andreas Bruckbauer wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> We noticed that our confocal images look amazing (fine details well
> resolved) as long as they are viewed with the monitor belonging to the
> microscope, but as soon as we open them on our PCs or Macs they look just
> normal (fine detail missing).
> The monitor at the Zeiss mic is a HP ZR30W a pretty expensive model. It
> seems to support 32 bit colours which would give 12 bit or 4096 grey steps
> for each of the primary colours. Not sure if this is the secret behind the
> good looking images but has anyone experience using such monitors to display
> images? I would think that the graphic card, operating system and image
> analysis software have to be capable of doing so, which programs would do this?
>
> Did i miss an important development in computer hardware or is there another
> reason for the amazing looking images? Any suggestions welcome.
> .
>

[George McNamara]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Andreas,

The HP ZR30w monitor is great, especially in a dark room. Current
amazon.com price is $1,128, which I do not consider that expensive.

I standardized onsingle or dual ZR30w's while I managed a core in Miami,
and now have a dual ZR30w on my lab's main microscope here in Houston.

Being in a darkened microscope room also helps compared to offices with
overhead fluorescent lighting, windows, etc.

George


On 6/13/2013 9:52 AM, Andreas Bruckbauer wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> We noticed that our confocal images look amazing (fine details well
> resolved) as long as they are viewed with the monitor belonging to the
> microscope, but as soon as we open them on our PCs or Macs they look just
> normal (fine detail missing).
> The monitor at the Zeiss mic is a HP ZR30W a pretty expensive model. It
> seems to support 32 bit colours which would give 12 bit or 4096 grey steps
> for each of the primary colours. Not sure if this is the secret behind the
> good looking images but has anyone experience using such monitors to display
> images? I would think that the graphic card, operating system and image
> analysis software have to be capable of doing so, which programs would do this?
>
> Did i miss an important development in computer hardware or is there another
> reason for the amazing looking images? Any suggestions welcome.
>
>    

--



George McNamara, Ph.D.
Single Cells Analyst
L.J.N. Cooper Lab
University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Houston, TX 77054

[Andreas Bruckbauer]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Thanks for the useful replies to my post. I see i got my bit numbers wrong,
the HP ZR30W is capable of delivering 10 bit per colour which generates 1.07
billion colours, (2^10)^3.

I installed ImageJ on the microscope computer and the images look just as
good in imageJ than in the Zen software. I don't think ImageJ uses fancy 10
bits for the colour, so I guess the bit depth is not so important as Vitally
pointed out.

We have the analysis workstations in the same room and I see the same
effect, so it has nothing to do with the room light, but definitely has to
do with the monitor or calibration.

When i wrote detail, i actually meant the ability to see dim and bright
features in the image, not so much the size of the features. While i think
it is definitely worth calibrating the monitor, i also found that the red
colour looks much better on the HP monitor. The following review shows how
it exceeds the Adobe 2008 colour space
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3754/a-new-30-contender-hp-zr30w-review/4
To test this i put a small spectrometer in front of the monitor and it has a
nice peak at 660 nm while our other monitors have the maximum wavelength
around 620 nm. I now think it is these nice colours combined with the
brightness of 370 cd/m2 which make the images look so good!
Well it would be nice if projectors in lecture rooms would have the same
capability, until then we will have to display images in false colours to
show all the data.

Andreas

[Tim Feinstein-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

It is good to know that proprietary software like Zen does not change the images too much.  You had me worried for a minute.  At the same time you are really selling those HP monitors.

This raises an interesting point about preparing images with the later viewer in mind.  The HP ZR30W sounds fantastic but most people do not have one.  At best readers see pics as an onscreen .pdf, otherwise projected in a darkish room or mangled by an inexpensive color printer.  It makes some sense to check image products on a non-awesome monitor to make sure the key point still comes across.  For projectors we note which ones have decent contrast, and for the vast majority we need to boost brightness and contrast until it looks a little nuts on the computer screen before it projects well.  

Of course this also argues strongly for non-arbitrary quantitative image measurements.  Even a cheap color printer cannot ruin those.  

All the best,


TF

Timothy Feinstein, PhD
Visiting Research Associate
Laboratory for GPCR Biology
Dept. of Pharmacology & Chemical Biology
University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine
BST W1301, 200 Lothrop St.
Pittsburgh, PA  15261

On Jun 14, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Andreas Bruckbauer wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Thanks for the useful replies to my post. I see i got my bit numbers wrong,
> the HP ZR30W is capable of delivering 10 bit per colour which generates 1.07
> billion colours, (2^10)^3.
>
> I installed ImageJ on the microscope computer and the images look just as
> good in imageJ than in the Zen software. I don't think ImageJ uses fancy 10
> bits for the colour, so I guess the bit depth is not so important as Vitally
> pointed out.
>
> We have the analysis workstations in the same room and I see the same
> effect, so it has nothing to do with the room light, but definitely has to
> do with the monitor or calibration.
>
> When i wrote detail, i actually meant the ability to see dim and bright
> features in the image, not so much the size of the features. While i think
> it is definitely worth calibrating the monitor, i also found that the red
> colour looks much better on the HP monitor. The following review shows how
> it exceeds the Adobe 2008 colour space
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/3754/a-new-30-contender-hp-zr30w-review/4
> To test this i put a small spectrometer in front of the monitor and it has a
> nice peak at 660 nm while our other monitors have the maximum wavelength
> around 620 nm. I now think it is these nice colours combined with the
> brightness of 370 cd/m2 which make the images look so good!
> Well it would be nice if projectors in lecture rooms would have the same
> capability, until then we will have to display images in false colours to
> show all the data.
>
> Andreas