Sharp RGBY Televisions
in [Design]
|
From: Archimedes' Lever on 29 Mar 2010 22:07 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:29:31 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >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) 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?
From: Archimedes' Lever on 29 Mar 2010 22:09 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:48:14 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >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) You look into lasers?
From: Don Klipstein on 29 Mar 2010 22:30 In <93n2r511misqemura5084kp72og0dd90aa(a)4ax.com>, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >On 30 Mar 2010 01:29:31 +0 UTC, don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > >>In <c5a3r5le4btkskrcst5pgan87hehgtt1qb(a)4ax.com>, Archimedes' Lever wrote: <SNIP to here to edit for space> >>> 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) > > Stacking the three bases overlapped makes what color in the center >overlapped area from a jet printer? It makes what they call "composite black", which appears to me to be a quite dark and very slightly greenish gray. > And then from a laser? 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. > Are toner powders transparent dyes, not opaque fine powders? 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 (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 29 Mar 2010 22:44 In <n9n2r5dk13v5m580vfs3a7elv20g8p856k(a)4ax.com>, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >On 30 Mar '10 01:48:14 +0 UTC, don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > >>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) > > You look into lasers? 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 (don(a)misty.com)
From: Archimedes' Lever on 29 Mar 2010 23:49
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:30:14 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In <93n2r511misqemura5084kp72og0dd90aa(a)4ax.com>, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>On 30 Mar 2010 01:29:31 +0 UTC, don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >> >>>In <c5a3r5le4btkskrcst5pgan87hehgtt1qb(a)4ax.com>, Archimedes' Lever wrote: > ><SNIP to here to edit for space> > >>>> 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) >> >> Stacking the three bases overlapped makes what color in the center >>overlapped area from a jet printer? > > It makes what they call "composite black", which appears to me to be >a quite dark and very slightly greenish gray. THAT is subtractive color mixing. > >> And then from a laser? > > That I have yet to try, It/they are color sources. It is 100% additive color mixing and the addition results in WHITE light. Laser printers, however, are another story. > 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. > >> Are toner powders transparent dyes, not opaque fine powders? > > 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? You sure you have a handle on additive and subtractive color mixing schemas? |