Sharp RGBY Televisions
in [Design]
|
From: Don Klipstein on 29 Mar 2010 21:29 In <c5a3r5le4btkskrcst5pgan87hehgtt1qb(a)4ax.com>, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT), osr(a)uakron.edu wrote: > >> I've yet to see a "synthetic" yellow that ever comes close >>to a direct yellow. > > Would not "compiled" be a better term? > > There is a video of a Thai dance that used a lot of yellow lasers. > > Quite a beautiful dance, even though it gives the impression that young >girls and women are enslaved to such "service" in life. Then they pick >the best and prettiest dancers from that crop to actually put "on >display". > > A lot of them look real hot, but then my 18 or older alarm starts >sounding, because even though some of them are surely of adult age, many >did not look that way. > > Anyway, they had a LOT of pure yellow lasers going and it certainly >does light everything up with a real yellow tinge. > > Still, an LCD panel is a backlit filter array more than anything else, >so this added 'pixel' into the 'pixel mosh pit' might make for a >'compiled pixel' that actually expands the color space use quite a bit. > > Funny how I had to explain to a guy at work the other day how the three >colors add up to black on a printer and white on a display. I had to >explain to him the differences between additive and subtractive color >mixing and how an opaque "color" will add together to form black. > > He acted like he still didn't believe me as he went back to his >workstation. I did not have time from my work to go into any great depth >of show him how a display adds up the same three colors differently than >the printer does. Most all printers use opaque inks, not transparent >inks 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 (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 29 Mar 2010 21:48 In <hma3r5530hdcf6etthlm71mnuensq03c66(a)4ax.com>, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT), osr(a)uakron.edu wrote: > >>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. > > We cannot even see what a modern display is capable of. They can all >pretty much produce colors that we are not able to discern. Our useable, >readable, "seeable" "color space" is INSIDE of what they can produce >already. 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 (don(a)misty.com)
From: Archimedes' Lever on 30 Mar 2010 05:00 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:05:36 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:57:17 +0100, Martin Brown wrote: > >> 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. > >Newscasters *are* orange ;-) And my head jerks a lot when I watch them... Or is that *him* shaking :-) ?
From: Archimedes' Lever on 30 Mar 2010 05:01 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:05:36 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:57:17 +0100, Martin Brown wrote: > >> 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. > >Newscasters *are* orange ;-) For some reason, I also thought of 'Liquid Sky' :-) Even though there isn't even the most remote connection.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 30 Mar 2010 05:01
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:36:14 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:57:17 +0100, Martin Brown ><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>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. > >NTSC = No True Skin Colors? > >>Regards, >>Martin Brown Cover the entire gamut... Never Twice Same Color |