Sharp RGBY Televisions

Those who saw it at CES were not impressed.

Part of the problem with LCD is the backlight spectrum. The LED backlights are lower power, but the color is poor. Look at the green they produce. The CCFL backlights are pretty good. You can get very close to plasma TV performance. However, the CCFL eats power, so you might as well get a plasma. Well sort of. Apparently the latest Panasonic plasmas don't get as black as they used too.

The AVS forum is the place to get the details on these things. Also CNET.

Still plasma kicks ass compared to the best LCDs.

No. Take a bicolour red-green LED and feed it some AC. Once the light is diffused you cannot easily tell the difference without a spectroscope.

The tricky bit is usually along the line of purples where the errors from making flesh tones realistic are allowed to accumulate. There are very few examples of subtle purple colours that people can recognise so it normally doesn't matter. Getting realistic skin tones is important though as the human eye is finely tuned to detecting unhealthy palour.

I used to love the way US newscasters drifted between ghoulish green and purple in the days before they were clamped to pale orange leather. I always believed it was a limitation of NTSC broadcast signals until I lived in Japan where they manage to do it correctly.

Regards, Martin Brown

Re: Sharp RGBY Televisions On Mar 29, 2:50=A0pm, Robert Baer wrote: RB > Salesmanship..at its "finest"... RB > If you are really good, you can sell a RB > refrigerator to an isolated Eskimo...

Thanks miso, Martin and Robert. That's why I asked.

I was wondering if there was some new caveat to the color theory. LOL

RGB

RYB

with mention of CMYK as in color printing.

Having spent many years doing laser shows, I can chime in on this one. On a older gas laser based system, I'd have 2 reds, 2 blues, 2 violets and 2 greens coming out of the modulator. I could sub in a yellow for one of the greens or reds. Wavelengths were programmable, the laser would output 15 or so lines, the modulator could pick any 8 of those. While a direct yellow is spectacular, if you have a choice, you add in a violet. When you run the numbers, yellow adds roughly 10 % more area to the color gamut on the IEC chart. Adding the violet(s) adds 30% or more. So if I had my choice of adding 457 nm violet or

568 nm yellow, I'd add the violet. If I want flesh tones, I'm adding the violet. If I want colors you do not normally see in nature, I'm adding the yellow.

With the monochromatic laser light, if we had a effect where we wanted a yellow diffuse background and other colors on top, then we would use the direct yellow, no combination of red or green matches the beautiful golden color of 568 or 575 nm laser light. Part of this can be ascribed to the effect that coherence has on the retina, but still, I've yet to see a "synthetic" yellow that ever comes close to a direct yellow.

With 8 bit RGB alone, I have a theoretical 16.8 million color system. In reality, we would use 32 or 64 color palettes. More then that is overload.

Laser has a gamut that blows away the best monitors. But when you adapt it to consumer use, it tends to look like plain old CRT after the engineering compromises to make it cost effective. A example, well known in the laser biz, Tom Cruise's helmet is brown in TOP GUN, in NTSC. In laser generated video or in the theatre on film, it matches the squadron color, which is violet.

For those that are curious, Google polychromatic acousto optic modulator, or acousto optic tunable filter.

Steve

Salesmanship..at its "finest"... If you are really good, you can sell a refrigerator to an isolated Eskimo...

More accurate yellows could be argued for.

Their "color space" is probably a little bigger, but the content also would have to have more info in it, and it doesn't. So, they have created the first half of a new spin on an old science, but the rest will have to follow.

Remember HDDVD?

Less likelihood for this to follow that same fiasco, however.

This is why OLED is in our true future, but Sharp wants you to think about that future with pixels comprised of four sources, not three.

I like it. Sight unseen. Just knowing what is involved.

Look what the printer boys have done.

Ability of the display is only part of the equation. What about the source material? If I'm watching a 5 year old DVD manufactured for a 3-color display, will I perceive any difference.

Can't watch pictures of yellow synthetic fish all day...

Newscasters *are* orange ;-)

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

NTSC = No True Skin Colors?

If that is true, than Canon BJC600 and i560 printers are other than "most all printers", at least as far as the colored inks go.

However, transparent inks follow subtractive color mixing well.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

At least nearly all red laser pointers, many red LEDs and a fair number of red traffic signals (mainly incandescent ones and the GaAlAsP LED ones common in Philadelphia but not anywhere else I have been) have a red color that I easily find to be a deeper, more pure shade of red than the red phosphor in CRT monitors and TV sets, the main reddish wavelength of most CCFL lamps, and the usaul InGaAlP red LEDs.

And how about a usual green InGaAlP LED filtered by a layer or two of green Plexiglas or the like? I have yet to see any monitor or TV set produce a green like that, let alone the nice deep emerald green of the

514.9/515.3 nm line pair of high pressure sodium or the deep blue-green of the 497.9/498.3 line pair of high pressure sodium, or the vivid deep blue-greenish turquoise of the 486.1 nm line of hydrogen. Heck, I have yet to see a monitor or TV set achieve the deep lime green of 532 nm laser pointers, but sometimes some look close. And turquoise-side blue InGaN LEDs have a color that I have yet to see in a monitor or a TV set, so does a 473 nm turquoise blue laser.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Stacking the three bases overlapped makes what color in the center overlapped area from a jet printer?

And then from a laser? Are toner powders transparent dyes, not opaque fine powders?

You look into lasers?

It makes what they call "composite black", which appears to me to be a quite dark and very slightly greenish gray.

That I have yet to try, since all color printers I have ever owned are/were inkjet printers. Same for everyone else in my family where I know what kind of printer they have.

My experience is that toners are powders that appear to me at least somewhat opaque. But what does that have to do with "most all printers", since inkjet printers don't use powdered toners but liquid dyed inks?

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

What, you think I have to look into one to see the color of its light?

What's wrong with looking at the spot that one gets when shining a laser of around a hundred microwatts to several milliwatts onto a wall? Or looking at translucent objects irradiated by such lasers? (As in doing the trick of examining the filament of a frosted incandescent lamp for breakage?)

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

THAT is subtractive color mixing.

It/they are color sources. It is 100% additive color mixing and the addition results in WHITE light. Laser printers, however, are another story.

You sure you have a handle on additive and subtractive color mixing schemas?

Actually, it would require a very special, white colored surface to 'reflect' diffusely and accurately, all of the color presented to it. An off color white would obviously absorb some of the spectrum and throw off "what you see"..

Yes, I do.

In additive, the three primaries add up to white at least ideally, and in subtractive the three primaries combine to make black ideally.

CRT monitors and TV sets I see well to be additive.

I have investigated LCD monitors and TV sets a bit, and found additive scheme so far.

Plasma TV sets surely appear to me to be additive.

Printing with transparent or largely-transparent dyed inks as is done with inkjet printers and in color newspaper printing is subtractive. Cyan plus magenta plus yellow ideally make black, but in practice tend to fall a little short, and one significant reason is because dyes have a tendency to not shortpass-filter as sharply as they can longpass-filter.

Truly opaque pigments, as opposed to translucent pigments, are additive in color mixing with modification by primary color contribution being weakened by presence of more than one primary. This means that mixing red, green and blue primaries achieves a gray of ~1/3 reflectivity as opposed to white, and yellow is a yuckyish half-brightness yellow.

And, I remember kindergarten and 1st grade with mixing red, yellow and "ultramarine blue" paints. I remember well that to get a good orange, best green being a slightly-darkish maybe-grayish version of the pea-soup-Gatorade-chartreusish very-yellowish green achieved by 565 nm "green" LEDs, and purple to be on the darkish side.

As for mixing translucent pigments - that gets into somewhere between modified-additive mixing of ideally opaque pigments and subtractive mixing of dyes.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)