Is there a big difference between a monitor with 16.2 million color and one with 16.7 million?
I mean as far as what your eye sees is it that noticeable? 

Thanks!

In my mind the difference would be negligible to the human eye.

I did just find this in Google:

Quote - A fact everyone buying a monitor ought to be aware of: There is a LARGE discrepancy between monitors that can display 16.2 million colors (also often stated as "more than 16 million colors") and those that are able to display 16.7 million colors. It does not seem it should matter much, but it does. The 16.2 million color monitors arrive at that color depth only by dithering. The 16.7 million color monitors possess the ability to display this number of colors without dithering.

So does that help you?

PS:  Definition of "Dithering"

Dithering
A method for simulating many colors or shades of gray with only a few. A limited number of same-colored pixels located close together is seen as a new color.

Attached Link: "Poser's Lights" tutorial compliments of Dr Geep Studios

Yes, the monitor with only 16.2 million may have a typo ... because ...
Technically, there is no such thing as 16.2 ... ;=]
All color monitors have 16.7 million colors ...  (unless it is purely an analog monitor)
256 for RED
256 for GREEN
256 for BLUe
256 x 256 x 256 = 16,777,216 colors =OR= 16.7 million ... ok? ...... OK.
See image above.

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Yikes The good doctor has discovered a way to morph a lot of fingers and toes on the Mr. Naysayer (or how else could he have counted beyond 20)!

;=]

Yup, dem morph thingie is really flexible.

;=]

It is actually quite common for manufacturers for advertise LCD's with only 6-bit color depth as "16.2 million colors". The actual number of colors in these is 262,144, but with varying the shades of nearby pixels (the method called dithering), human eye can be tricked enough to perceive more colors than 6-bit color depth can achieve.

Personally ... I have used and owned several 6-bit LCD's (typically with fast response times and cheap price tags; telltale signs of weak color depth) and 8-bit LCDs too. I now own a 24" Samsung with 8-bit color depth. The difference to 6-bit panels is just stunning. Eventhough the LCD with 8-bit color depth and better panel  cost me almost 1500 USD, I would not want to go back to lower color depths any more.  In my opinion there is a huge difference between these monitor types, but then again I actually care about what I see on the screen. 

Okay I see thanks so I guess and old fart like me with failing eyes will not see much a difference LOL!

It's kind of the same thing with people trying to tell me a 300 dpi image as a background is better than a 72dpi (or 96dpi) image.
Bull. :)
That's all the monitor can display. A 300 dpi image will look the same as a 72dpi image -- on your screen.
If you want to print it, then it's an entirely different story. That's where those extra dpi matter.
Colors?
Yeah, you can "see" them all. But you can distinguish between them. It may give a little more depth, but unless you have your monitor calibrated properly and work in an environment where there is no glare, no reflection of any kind - I'd bet you can't actually tell. You'd be guessing. :)

I used to have one of those 6-bit LCD monitors. Now I have an 8-bit. My new monitor is amazingly better, but there are so many other differences (contrast ratio, response time, etc.) that I'd be hard pressed to tell you how much was due to the difference in bit-depth and dithering.

On the other hand, my opinion is that if you're getting a 6-bit monitor, it probably is cutting corners in other ways, too. You often see 300 cd/mm versus 400 cd/mm brightness, 700:1 instead of 20,000:1 contrast, 12 ms response versus 2 ms response. All these things add up to a vastly different experience.

I use my monitor more than any other device in my life - anywhere from 10 to 18 hours a day. My feeling is that of all the devices in your life, this is the LAST one you should cheap-out on. The next one is your mattress.

if you can afford it, spend $400-$500 on a 24" or bigger monitor. It is an amazing difference. I recommend Samsung.

I completely agree Bagginsbill.

If you need to save money - save it someplace else if you work on your screen a lot.
The monitor is the very last component you should save on.

I bought a very good Eizo a few years ago, and the monitor was about £600 at the time. It's served me well.
Today that same monitor wouldn't be anywhere near as much, and it wouldn't stack up against the high end monitors out there today, but back then it was one of the best you could get.

Not only that... it outlasted 2 PC's so far.

Attached Link: Apples settles 'cause their monitor is not as cool as they say it is

I like the way they try to pull the single digit over your eyes. 16.2 or 16.7
I wonder how much that .5 has cost them? :biggrin:

offhand...wouldn't that be about 500,000 colors?...;)

one thing I've always wondered...what are the names of all those colors?...;) I've always had a preference for mediummediumlightdarkmediumpuceargent...;)

That's what the pantone color chart is for! :P

This issue is quite complex but I'll simplify it a bit, ignore 'extra' channels used for transparency (alpha), and ignore colour spaces with 4 or more channels (CMYK etc).

A 24-bit monitor uses 8 bits per channel, the channels being Red Green and Blue (RGB). 8 bits (a bit being either 1 or 0, i.e. one of two possible values) gives 2 to the power of 8 possible values (2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2) = 256. In other words, 256 possible shades of Red, 256 possible shades of Green, 256 possible shades of Blue.

That means there are 256x256x256 possible combinations: 16,777,216, i.e 16.7 million colours.

The average human can distinguish in the region of 10 million different colours; I have about  25 years of colour science / colour analysis experience and when I was a bit younger I could maybe add another one or two million to that.

16 million + possible colours is enough for anyone.

"what are the names of all those colors?"

They don't have names, they have values. e.g. pure white = 255R, 255G, 255B; pure black = 0R, 0G, 0B.

Quote - offhand...wouldn't that be about 500,000 colors?...;)

one thing I've always wondered...what are the names of all those colors?...;) I've always had a preference for mediummediumlightdarkmediumpuceargent...;)

If it is 6 bit then it would be 64x64x64=262,144 colors.

Where-as 8 bit would be 256x256x256=16,777,216 colors.

I think the name you are looking for is "Magnolia".

was just kidding...;) Heck, paint colors are hard enough to keep up with; desert ice (?!), etc...;)

All the color theory I get to use is orange cables in the comm closets, and green ones to the desktops...;)

This is a common fallacy. It is most certainly not enough.

The statement about humans being able to distinguish 10 million colors is nonsense. I could just as easily say you can't tell a straight line from a curved one. Remember that there are interesting optical illusions that demonstrate situations where humans cannot tell that a straight line is straight. Does that mean we should go out and let all our houses be crooked? Hardly.

Yes there are situations where 16.7 million colors is more than enough. However, I'll show you one right here where it isn't enough.

In this image (click for full size), on my awesome monitor, I can see banding in both balls. One of these balls is rendered in 8-bit (16.7 million colors) and the other is rendered in 6-bit (262 thousand colors).

All of you should be able to tell which is the 6-bit. If you can't, you have a terrible monitor - probably one of those 6-bit monitors.

As I said, I can see color banding in both balls. The 8-bit bands are much more narrow, but they are there.

(In case you don't know what banding is, it is a phenomenon where you are presented with a continously varying gradient over a small brightness range, and the computer doesn't have enough colors to show all the tiny changes. As a result, you get big sections all with the same color, which is wrong.)

On the 6-bit ball, the banding will actually make you think that there are sections where the bottom of a band is brighter than the top of the same band. That is an optical illusion, caused by the sudden jarring transition between bands.

Excellent example bb.  Thanks for posting.

cheers,
dr geep
;=]