| General > General Technical Chat |
| An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them |
| << < (27/39) > >> |
| BrianHG:
If the big fat white pixels were the true solution, then the first QD-OLED panels would have had them too. As for the negative color offset mentioned earlier with the image processing, yes when having the 'yellow' sections on the color wheel of the DLP projectors, you do need the 9 channel color space converter instead of the normal 3 channel one to try to attempt further correction which would not be required on a CRT with a strict WRGB 4 channel phosphor. Just the offset recognition of the white additive boost which can be done within the analog multiplier circuitry of the YUV to RGB converter in most TVs. The best solution is to get the standard gan blue LED layer to be printed/deposited in a compatible chemistry to a silicon active-matrix layer which will not age as quickly as the organic elements currently in use. I'm sure a clever means will come up which will give us a huge power budget boost per panel with pixels which will last much longer. |
| Zero999:
I don't see how adding an extra colour such as yellow, or white, especially the latter, can be a good thing for colour definition. It will increase intensity, but at the loss of colour definition, at higher intensities. Colour definition can be improved by using red, green and blue emitters with narrow peaks. Using far red, >700nm, rather than bright red, helps a lot, because it will not stimulate the green cones so much, but is much less efficient. |
| PlainName:
If you're looking at a bright light, don't surrounding colours get washed out? A bright red in front of a brighter white is a dull red, isn't it? |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on February 08, 2022, 01:52:47 pm ---I don't see how adding an extra colour such as yellow, or white, especially the latter, can be a good thing for colour definition. It will increase intensity, but at the loss of colour definition, at higher intensities. --- End quote --- It depends what the panel is for: * For a TV (or anything else displaying natural images, rather than tightly constrained graphics) it works extremely well. Our eyes don't normally see rich colour in fine image detail. That's why analogue TV could get away with a far lower definition for colour than for luminance. Most "pictures" aren't tightly aligned with the pixels, so we are rarely looking at distinct individual pixels displaying distinct saturated colours. Digital cameras don't equally prioritise R, G and B, so the source for material displayed on TVs is not like a clean R + G + B image, anyway. The vast majority of what you see on a TV has been further compressed between the camera and the display in ways which reduce the colour definition quite markedly. * For a computer monitor (or other graphics display panel) it works really badly. Computers display highly unnatural images, which only look right when tightly aligned with the pixels. We view these panels from a short range, where we are highly aware of the individual pixels, rather than seeing them blending into a picture. Here even an RGB panel, which must have a spatial separation between the R, G and B pixels, has issues. We sit close to the display, and can often clearly see that a single line of pixels of a non-primary colour is actually adjacent lines of the primary colours. |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on February 08, 2022, 02:03:28 pm ---If you're looking at a bright light, don't surrounding colours get washed out? A bright red in front of a brighter white is a dull red, isn't it? --- End quote --- Any sufficiently bright light basically looks white(ish). |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |