Author Topic: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them  (Read 21867 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #100 on: February 06, 2022, 11:32:24 pm »
If you traveled through airports back when they used CRTs for the departure/arrival status displays, you saw a lot of burned-in images.

Also, railway ?? stations ??, arcade machines (especially when switched off), and other things. Usually home TVs were fine, because of the varying TV pictures.
EDIT: Changed my mind. Not sure, so put ??, where applicable.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2022, 01:49:13 am by MK14 »
 

Offline Red Squirrel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2757
  • Country: ca
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #101 on: February 06, 2022, 11:46:19 pm »
I find the best bang for the buck with TVs is to buy a high end one, but that is a few years behind in tech.  Never buy whatever tech just came out, you will over pay.  I guess that goes for most things, but especially TVs.

My current TV is actually a HD TV I bought like 10 years ago, I had paid like 1k for it at the time, it was a 3k TV that was on sale by a lot.  So for the time it was a good deal.   One key with expensive purchases is to make sure they remain useful for as long as possible.  I just don't get people that buy iphones every year.  Paying over a grand for a phone only to ditch it a year or two later.  Seems so financially wasteful to me. 

I am kind of eyeing 8K TVs, mostly to use as a monitor, since that would be a crazy amount of screen real estate, but if I do that I'll wait at least a couple more years to see if they come down in price.   I have two 4k monitors right now but the issue is they have burn in already after only a few years.  I did not do my research enough when buying them.  I did not realize burn in was still a thing.  When I DO upgrade I will want to make sure I get a tech that does not have burn in.
 
The following users thanked this post: NiHaoMike

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10034
  • Country: gb
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #102 on: February 07, 2022, 12:28:50 am »
If you traveled through airports back when they used CRTs for the departure/arrival status displays, you saw a lot of burned-in images.
If you travelled through transport interchanges during the plasma era you saw even worse burned-in images. The Windows BSOD page was deeply burned into almost every one.
 

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8275
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #103 on: February 07, 2022, 12:42:24 am »
Warning, QD-OLED has just hit the market.

Unlike OLED, true pure colors (no stupid white pixels to boost OLED's weak brightness), 3 year no-burn in guarantee, brighter overall white level and also already available in desktop PC monitors.
Adding the white subpixel isn’t stupid, it’s smart. Any time you have all three RGB subpixels lit simultaneously, the “common” brightness level is just white. (E.g. if the RGB levels are 230/175/60, then you can subtract 60 from all of them and instead run the white subpixel at the equivalent brightness of 60/60/60, sparing the blue subpixel some wear.)

Mind you that like plasma, OLED really isn’t intended for high ambient light environments; LCD is better for that. But in ordinary household light levels they’re totally fine.
LOL... Right... OK....
 

Online Vgkid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2727
  • Country: us
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #104 on: February 07, 2022, 12:51:49 am »
I checked the date of manufacture for our 46in panasonic 1080p plasma, 2010.
It was older than I thought, i was thinking 2012ish.
If you own any North Hills Electronics gear, message me. L&N Fan
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #105 on: February 07, 2022, 01:04:11 am »
Quote
I just don't get people that buy iphones every year.  Paying over a grand for a phone only to ditch it a year or two later.  Seems so financially wasteful to me.

I think the idea is you only pay full cost for the first one, then after that you buy a new one and flog off the previous one. These things retain a good resale value, so effectively your $1000 phone is only costing you $300 or whatever. Once over that initial cost hurdle it's pretty much the same as a mid-range Android device from there on.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12413
  • Country: au
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #106 on: February 07, 2022, 04:36:59 am »
It is a sad fact that any display technology where image production comes from the varying brightness of elements that have a finite life is - inexorably - prone to burn-in.  Any mechanism to address such artefacts cannot rejuvenate the impacted elements (well, not that I am aware of) - which leads to the conclusion that whatever those mechanisms might be, they are quite likely reducing the overall life of the panel.  (Something that was mentioned above.)

Such an attribute doesn't affect me too much.  Aside from a couple of OLED phones, the display tech around me is all LCD.  I have two 27" IPS monitors in front of me now and the TV is a cheap Aldi 39" LCD.

The cheap TV is only Full HD - but that's pretty good enough to watch movies.  I've set up a PC to run into it mainly to use Kodi and that works pretty well.  (It's absolutely crap as a monitor.)  It does have a bit of light bleed, but not all that noticeable unless you watch space shows - but then I try and forget about that and just get into the story.

It does, however, have one trait that I find rather annoying ...

In images where there is a notable area of gradual shading change, there are very obvious steps.  It's like looking at a contour map overlaid on the image.  If there was ever an argument for going for a high bit count video decoder, this is it.  I sometimes wonder if it has an 8 bit decoder or a 6 bit!  I sometimes dream of something with 12 bit.

For the most part, these irritations are passing and by not getting hung up about them, I get to enjoy my media.

I have seen 8K.  I have seen OLED.  ... and I have seen the credits rolling on a dozen screens on display in a major electronics retailer.  The two Sony units were clearly identifiable - just by looking at the upward scrolling text.  On all the other units, the text movement was jittery - but on the Sony units, it was buttery smooth.

QD-OLED certainly has my attention as well, but I am a little hesitant about the ageing issue of OLEDs.  Yes, by having all the OLEDs the same colour, one issue of ageing is addressed - but they are still going to age.  Elements being driven at different intensities will cause different ageing - so burn-in is still on the cards.

I can appreciate ALL the things that various manufacturers can bring to the market - and I look forward to seeing where we go with it all.  BUT, I am not preoccupied with seeking the latest and greatest, shelling out more cash to watch material which - for the most part - makes little improvement in my life.



I held my 3 day old grandson for the first time yesterday.  That was worth more than any TV.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline AndyC_772

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4315
  • Country: gb
  • Professional design engineer
    • Cawte Engineering | Reliable Electronics
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #107 on: February 07, 2022, 07:55:52 am »
whatever those mechanisms might be, they are quite likely reducing the overall life of the panel.  (Something that was mentioned above.)

Depends how you define the "life" of the panel. Has it reached EoL when the overall brightness has fallen below some fraction of its original level, or when there are visible artefacts in the content (colour shifts, static logos and the like)?

Quote
In images where there is a notable area of gradual shading change, there are very obvious steps.  It's like looking at a contour map overlaid on the image.  If there was ever an argument for going for a high bit count video decoder, this is it.  I sometimes wonder if it has an 8 bit decoder or a 6 bit!  I sometimes dream of something with 12 bit.

Posterisation is very common with low end equipment for exactly this reason - insufficient bit depth.

It might be worth trying a different source component; this effect is noticeable on my TV when viewing Netflix using my cable provider's box (Virgin Tivo V6), but the same content is smooth using the Netflix apps on my BD player and PS5. The difference is simply that both of these are made to deliver a level of performance rather than being strictly built down to a price.

Quote
I have seen the credits rolling on a dozen screens on display in a major electronics retailer.  The two Sony units were clearly identifiable - just by looking at the upward scrolling text.  On all the other units, the text movement was jittery - but on the Sony units, it was buttery smooth.

That's just default settings being different. Intermediate frame creation is a standard feature to help smooth motion; on movies, for example, some people prefer a screen that shows 24 frames/sec to exactly match the original source, others like to have the extra (interpolated) frames. Sounds like the Sony units may have this feature on by default, and others have it off, but either way, 30 seconds in the setup menu and you're sorted.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8275
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #108 on: February 07, 2022, 08:22:16 am »

I have seen 8K.  I have seen OLED.  ... and I have seen the credits rolling on a dozen screens on display in a major electronics retailer.  The two Sony units were clearly identifiable - just by looking at the upward scrolling text.  On all the other units, the text movement was jittery - but on the Sony units, it was buttery smooth.

That buttery smooth is an image processing feature of the TV's chipset.  It is bs.  It is not the original film's 24fps.  Yes, apparently, there are those who like it, but, you are no longer seeing what the original film actually looks like but an interpreted process of what the chipset believes should be displayed inbetween and mistakes are usually made during high speed action sequences.

Note that you can turn the feature off in the Sony's by selecting the 'reference director's film mode', or whatever the industry calls it.  The director's mode also turns off the stupid auto-dynamic range BS making most movies look a lot darker, but now the daylight outdoor scenes will be properly bright without blooming in bright areas and dark or indoor filmed scenes will be properly dark.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14, BrokenYugo

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12413
  • Country: au
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #109 on: February 07, 2022, 11:09:07 am »
The thing is (aside from the low bit depth) I only really notice this stuff when I'm actively looking for it.  I'm not going to shell out a fistful of cash chasing something that only bothers me rarely, if at all.

Anyway, most of my "screen time" is on the monitors before me as I type.....
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13157
  • Country: ch
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #110 on: February 07, 2022, 11:41:09 am »
Warning, QD-OLED has just hit the market.

Unlike OLED, true pure colors (no stupid white pixels to boost OLED's weak brightness), 3 year no-burn in guarantee, brighter overall white level and also already available in desktop PC monitors.
Adding the white subpixel isn’t stupid, it’s smart. Any time you have all three RGB subpixels lit simultaneously, the “common” brightness level is just white. (E.g. if the RGB levels are 230/175/60, then you can subtract 60 from all of them and instead run the white subpixel at the equivalent brightness of 60/60/60, sparing the blue subpixel some wear.)

Mind you that like plasma, OLED really isn’t intended for high ambient light environments; LCD is better for that. But in ordinary household light levels they’re totally fine.
LOL... Right... OK....
Why don’t you actually explain why you disagree instead of just a dismissive smirk?
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone, mathsquid, Cubdriver, MK14

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #111 on: February 07, 2022, 12:06:54 pm »
Quote
Yes, by having all the OLEDs the same colour, one issue of ageing is addressed - but they are still going to age.

The LEDs in an LCD TV will age too, and eventually become too dim. But I guess the effect will be constant across the panel (although as they dim, perhaps the colour will subtly change so you might get the same effect as the OLEDs, just in a different means of getting there).
 

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8275
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #112 on: February 07, 2022, 02:27:18 pm »
Warning, QD-OLED has just hit the market.

Unlike OLED, true pure colors (no stupid white pixels to boost OLED's weak brightness), 3 year no-burn in guarantee, brighter overall white level and also already available in desktop PC monitors.
Adding the white subpixel isn’t stupid, it’s smart. Any time you have all three RGB subpixels lit simultaneously, the “common” brightness level is just white. (E.g. if the RGB levels are 230/175/60, then you can subtract 60 from all of them and instead run the white subpixel at the equivalent brightness of 60/60/60, sparing the blue subpixel some wear.)

Mind you that like plasma, OLED really isn’t intended for high ambient light environments; LCD is better for that. But in ordinary household light levels they’re totally fine.
LOL... Right... OK....
Why don’t you actually explain why you disagree instead of just a dismissive smirk?
    What if you want 100% red.  Or 100% Green, or 100% blue, or 100% yellow, or 100% cyan, or 100% magenta.  You wasted surface area of each pure color pixel for white loosing the maximum possible color saturation brightness.  1 chip DLP projectors did the same thing when they went from the first original RGB color wheel filters in the early 2000s to the newer ones with a transparent and yellow portions of the newer color wheel to get brighter whites known as 'Brilliant Color'.  It messes up the natural colors through processing to achieve a stronger brightness, but false color rusty looking image wherever there supposed to be rich skin tones and rich greens and blues look dark.  The side-by-side photographs of OLED vs QD-OLED from CES shows this exact same color limitation errors.  Disabling the 'Brilliant Color' on those 1 chip DLP projectors fixes the color to it's proper levels, but with that color wheel having that dumb white and yellow sections now not in use, you get a net loss of around 40% brightness where as if they kept the original full RGB color wheels, this would have only been around a 20% loss of brightness, but true color.
    Take a zoomed up magnification look at the RGBW OLED screens.  The white pixels are the largest ones wasting the potential output capability of the much tinier red/green/blue which must now fit in the remaining available space.
    If the 'white' was such a good idea, then the same would have been done with every LCD screens and even old CRTs which would have been manufactured with 4 guns and 4 types of phosphor, RGBW, to get those brighter whites.  The white is a cheap countermeasure fix hoping that people don't know what the original image supposed to look like and without a reference monitor side-by-side, you know tricks are being made to fool you into thinking what you have is correct and king when the colors are actually all wrong.  Never accept backup correction countermeasures for the true thing as those tricks always fail to give the true representation whenever compared to the original source unless your source image doesn't exceed a combination of 40-50% color saturation+brightness drive.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2022, 02:35:32 pm by BrianHG »
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #113 on: February 07, 2022, 02:36:40 pm »
Quote
what the original image supposed to look like and without a reference monitor side-by-side, you know tricks are being made to fool you into thinking what you have is correct

Isn't this verging on audiophoolery territory? Surely, unless you are trying to make a backup or do absolute measurements, the criteria is whether it is good to watch (or listen to)? Does it have to be exactly as the camera saw it so long as it seems to be OK? If you're watching with a daylight background whatever you're watching will seem different to the same thing when viewed with a 2700K tungsten lighting background, so fooling the eye and brain isn't exactly unusual.
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8275
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #114 on: February 07, 2022, 02:50:19 pm »
Quote
what the original image supposed to look like and without a reference monitor side-by-side, you know tricks are being made to fool you into thinking what you have is correct

Isn't this verging on audiophoolery territory? Surely, unless you are trying to make a backup or do absolute measurements, the criteria is whether it is good to watch (or listen to)? Does it have to be exactly as the camera saw it so long as it seems to be OK? If you're watching with a daylight background whatever you're watching will seem different to the same thing when viewed with a 2700K tungsten lighting background, so fooling the eye and brain isn't exactly unusual.
:palm: You have got to be kidding me.  A 40% error in saturated color picture drive capability is somehow equivilant to the BS of audio foolery issue of copper cable for your speakers VS the 10k$ speaker cables which have NO MEASURABLE effect on the output?  How in the world can you equate a 40% measurable photograph-able difference to a 0% measurable actual difference of the audio foolery BS.

Just look at the picture at the 11 second point.

Does that look like audio foolery?   :palm:
The color difference is identical to the stupid 'Brilliant Color' mode on my DLP projector, except that the QD-OLED is full brightness.
(Yes, I had to disable 'Brilliant Color' on my projector to see the difference, otherwise all three images are approximately equivilant except for brightness.)  My studio grade CRTs show the largest difference between the 3 examples.


 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #115 on: February 07, 2022, 02:54:38 pm »
In non-foolish audio, the usual threshold for concern is 1 dB, which is a power increment of 26%.
In critical color photography, the usual threshold for concern is 1/3 stop, which corresponds to 1 dB in optical power, or 26% again.
If you tell a 10-year-old kid to turn down the volume, he will turn it down by 1 dB.
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #116 on: February 07, 2022, 05:25:09 pm »
Quote
How in the world can you equate a 40% measurable photograph-able difference to a 0% measurable actual difference of the audio foolery BS.

You are missing my point where I said "the criteria is whether it is good to watch". Clearly, if the picture is as bad as you show then it ISN'T good to watch. How hard is that to grasp?

You were complaining earlier that the nice-to-watch stuff (like the Sony make-it-up-so-it's-smooth thing and the white's being too white or something) is bad because it's not 'true to the original' and that kind of thing. Who the hell cares? Did I enjoy watching it <-- that should be the criteria unless you've got OCD about technology.
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13157
  • Country: ch
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #117 on: February 07, 2022, 07:07:37 pm »
Warning, QD-OLED has just hit the market.

Unlike OLED, true pure colors (no stupid white pixels to boost OLED's weak brightness), 3 year no-burn in guarantee, brighter overall white level and also already available in desktop PC monitors.
Adding the white subpixel isn’t stupid, it’s smart. Any time you have all three RGB subpixels lit simultaneously, the “common” brightness level is just white. (E.g. if the RGB levels are 230/175/60, then you can subtract 60 from all of them and instead run the white subpixel at the equivalent brightness of 60/60/60, sparing the blue subpixel some wear.)

Mind you that like plasma, OLED really isn’t intended for high ambient light environments; LCD is better for that. But in ordinary household light levels they’re totally fine.
LOL... Right... OK....
Why don’t you actually explain why you disagree instead of just a dismissive smirk?
    What if you want 100% red.  Or 100% Green, or 100% blue, or 100% yellow, or 100% cyan, or 100% magenta.  You wasted surface area of each pure color pixel for white loosing the maximum possible color saturation brightness.  1 chip DLP projectors did the same thing when they went from the first original RGB color wheel filters in the early 2000s to the newer ones with a transparent and yellow portions of the newer color wheel to get brighter whites known as 'Brilliant Color'.  It messes up the natural colors through processing to achieve a stronger brightness, but false color rusty looking image wherever there supposed to be rich skin tones and rich greens and blues look dark.  The side-by-side photographs of OLED vs QD-OLED from CES shows this exact same color limitation errors.  Disabling the 'Brilliant Color' on those 1 chip DLP projectors fixes the color to it's proper levels, but with that color wheel having that dumb white and yellow sections now not in use, you get a net loss of around 40% brightness where as if they kept the original full RGB color wheels, this would have only been around a 20% loss of brightness, but true color.
    Take a zoomed up magnification look at the RGBW OLED screens.  The white pixels are the largest ones wasting the potential output capability of the much tinier red/green/blue which must now fit in the remaining available space.
    If the 'white' was such a good idea, then the same would have been done with every LCD screens and even old CRTs which would have been manufactured with 4 guns and 4 types of phosphor, RGBW, to get those brighter whites.  The white is a cheap countermeasure fix hoping that people don't know what the original image supposed to look like and without a reference monitor side-by-side, you know tricks are being made to fool you into thinking what you have is correct and king when the colors are actually all wrong.  Never accept backup correction countermeasures for the true thing as those tricks always fail to give the true representation whenever compared to the original source unless your source image doesn't exceed a combination of 40-50% color saturation+brightness drive.
There have been LCDs with subpixels beyond RGB, notably Sharp’s Quattron which added yellow. Single-chip DLP projectors all use multicolor filter wheels, including very high end ones.

Why wasn’t this widespread in the past? Cost. It takes a lot of image computation to separate out to more colors, and in the days of CRTs that would have been a ton of cost for little reward. LCD doesn’t need that help because it can achieve more brightness simply by using a beefier backlight. OLED lifespan being limited by the blue subpixel lifespan, it makes a ton of sense to relieve it as much as possible. Additionally, it gives the ability to have a truer white than RGB “white” can achieve.

You seem to be a sort of image purist (based on this and your comment about motion interpolation), but that requires ignoring that photography and videography are inherently interpretations of reality, not a theoretically “authentic” rendition.
 

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8275
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #118 on: February 07, 2022, 09:20:05 pm »
Why wasn’t this widespread in the past? Cost. It takes a lot of image computation to separate out to more colors, and in the days of CRTs that would have been a ton of cost for little reward.
Computation? To get a boosting white channel beyond the RGB, you would use 3 appropriate resistors plus a driver amp.  Hello, analog world...
Yes, mechanically, a 4 point aperture grill and phosphor coating will be the bulk of the cost.
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13157
  • Country: ch
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #119 on: February 07, 2022, 09:39:58 pm »
Why wasn’t this widespread in the past? Cost. It takes a lot of image computation to separate out to more colors, and in the days of CRTs that would have been a ton of cost for little reward.
Computation? To get a boosting white channel beyond the RGB, you would use 3 appropriate resistors plus a driver amp.  Hello, analog world...
Yes, mechanically, a 4 point aperture grill and phosphor coating will be the bulk of the cost.
It’s not a boost, dude.  :palm: It’s replacing the white component of the RGB channels. That’a a dynamic subtractive process.

And you do realize that computation can be analog? (Just like the YUV->RGB transform done in analog color TVs.) I never said it had to be digital.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2022, 09:41:47 pm by tooki »
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13157
  • Country: ch
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #120 on: February 07, 2022, 09:49:12 pm »
P.S. Take a look at the HSB color model. Replacing part of the RGB with white is sorta like considering the B component of a color and pushing that alone onto the white subpixel.
 

Offline G0HZU

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3238
  • Country: gb
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #121 on: February 07, 2022, 10:22:32 pm »
I'm still watching an old Pioneer Kuro plasma that I purchased new in 2009. These were the last of their kind and the image quality can be really good with plasma. It also has its limitations so I've always yearned for something better when it finally dies.

I expect I'll buy a decent OLED model to replace it and this will probably cost more than I paid for the Pioneer plasma in 2009. I'd happily pay double if I get a significant improvement compared to the (flawed but still impressive) plasma image quality.

 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, tooki

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7334
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #122 on: February 07, 2022, 11:29:23 pm »
It’s not a boost, dude.  :palm: It’s replacing the white component of the RGB channels. That’a a dynamic subtractive process.

And you do realize that computation can be analog? (Just like the YUV->RGB transform done in analog color TVs.) I never said it had to be digital.

If R+G+B = W, and the colour balance of the white pixel is set such that the output of the white pixel equals the sum of three equivalent RGB pixels at similar luminosity, I can't see why it would change anything about the colour balance.  All of this colour mixing nonsense just sounds like "videophoolery".  Our eyes have three cones, and the red and green cones sense very similar wavelengths.  What we see is going to be limited to that - so why would using a colour model that is different create such a vastly different experience?

Talking about weird displays (Quattron was weird!)   Samsung demonstrated a plasma back in (2010?) that used a white pixel.    As far as I know it never reached production but we did see a weird PenTile matrix plasma as one of their last: the PN60F5300.  Widely regarded as one of the strangest plasma displays ever produced, because all prior PDPs had been RGB vertical striped.  There was much speculation on why this was done, but the likely reason was just cost (reducing the number of 60V driver ICs that are embedded in the panel surely helps), though it may also have increased brightness somewhat too.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2022, 11:33:06 pm by tom66 »
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5155
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #123 on: February 08, 2022, 01:49:57 am »
It’s not a boost, dude.  :palm: It’s replacing the white component of the RGB channels. That’a a dynamic subtractive process.

And you do realize that computation can be analog? (Just like the YUV->RGB transform done in analog color TVs.) I never said it had to be digital.

If R+G+B = W, and the colour balance of the white pixel is set such that the output of the white pixel equals the sum of three equivalent RGB pixels at similar luminosity, I can't see why it would change anything about the colour balance.  All of this colour mixing nonsense just sounds like "videophoolery".  Our eyes have three cones, and the red and green cones sense very similar wavelengths.  What we see is going to be limited to that - so why would using a colour model that is different create such a vastly different experience?
Because some manufacturers were tempted by marketing specs, so instead of just using W (or some other additional component beyond RGB) to maintain the same luminance range, they would turn every channel on hard to get a higher peak brightness. Which has a limited gamut in those brighter regions....

...at which point you head away from linear color theory and need to consider perceptual colors, which arent as well agreed upon.

TV/Video capture chains are already working inside a synthetic gamut, which is why mono chromatic LED lighting can look so bad/wrong in images. Chopping out some of the possible color gamut for more brightness was a trade off plenty of consumers were happy to go with.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2022, 03:30:48 am by Someone »
 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9321
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #124 on: February 08, 2022, 01:54:10 am »
There exist color LCD displays that have no color filters and instead use a backlight that rapidly switches between the 3 primary colors. It hasn't caught on due to the difficulty of making a LCD fast enough for that to work well, the main niche it had limited success in are ebook oriented tablets that can also display color. In principle, such a display can switch between any combination of the 3 colors at any time, but the power use of the DSP needed to coordinate it all would likely cancel out the power savings.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf