Sharp RGBY Televisions
in [Design]
|
From: Archimedes' Lever on 29 Mar 2010 23:55 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:44:49 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >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) 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"..
From: Don Klipstein on 30 Mar 2010 00:31 In <p3s2r51g2crafe2mgi8bso1o64nsgrvk67(a)4ax.com>, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >On 30 Mar '10 02:30:14 +0 UTC, don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > >>In <93n2r511misqemura5084kp72og0dd90aa(a)4ax.com>, Archimedes' Lever says: >>>On 30 Mar 2010 01:29:31 +0 UTC, don(a)manx.misty.com (D. Klipstein) said: >>> >>>>In <c5a3r5le4btkskrcst5pgan87hehgtt1qb(a)4ax.com>, A.s' Lever wrote: >> >>>> or >> <SNIP to here to edit for space> >> >>>>>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. >>> >>> 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? 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 (don(a)misty.com)
From: Tim Williams on 30 Mar 2010 00:36 "Don Klipstein" <don(a)manx.misty.com> wrote in message news:slrnhr2m2t.6qt.don(a)manx.misty.com... > 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. Let alone the unique blue/green flame of burning zinc. As far as I know, it looks so strage because it really is composed of two lines, one greenish and the other bluish. And being a poorly controlled flame, the color will change with conditions, giving a variable mixture of both. Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
From: Don Klipstein on 30 Mar 2010 00:54 In <k7t2r5hreb1f7t4dvmb80vhln8ifs2oj8e(a)4ax.com>, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >On 30 Mar '10 02:44:49 +0 UTC, don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > >>In <n9n2r5dk13v5m580vfs3a7elv20g8p856k(a)4ax.com>, Archimedes' Lever says: >>>On 30 Mar '10 01:48:14 +0 UTC, don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) said: >>> >>>>In <hma3r5530hdcf6etthlm71mnuensq03c66(a)4ax.com>, A.s' Lever wrote: <SNIP to edit for space> >>> 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?) > > 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".. Except that the lasers that I mentioned (which I regrettably snipped but can still cite thanks to Google's usenet archive) are single-wavelength ones. These single-wavelength lasers would be common cheap red laser pointers having a very high rate of both having close-enough-to-all visible spectrum output within half or 1/4 of a nm of their main "laser wavelength" around 650 nm, or *secondarily* red He-Ne lasers whose laser beams have significant presence of only one He-Ne laser wavelength, namely 632.8 nm, or 532 nm green laser pointers, where I see greatly strong lack of visible spectrum content at wavelengths longer than 533 nm or shorter than 531 nm, and 473 nm "DPSS" lasers - I had one in my hands for a few days and found at least essentially all of its visible spectrum content to be in one wavelength. And I have on hand a few diffraction gratings, a couple prisms, as well as a few of the "clear diffraction-grating-capable" discs that come in some spindle-packs of recordable CDs and recordable DVDs. I have plenty of experience with the above lasers being single-wavelength in my experience. For that matter, as much as I played with lasers, I have yet to get my hands onto one producing visible-spectrum laser radiation at more than one wavelength. (Although I have seen and not gotten my hands onto a few argon lasers that produced laser light at 2 wavelengths simultaneously among the top 4 or 5 or so wavelengths of argon lasers.) - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Archimedes' Lever on 30 Mar 2010 01:08
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:31:03 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In <p3s2r51g2crafe2mgi8bso1o64nsgrvk67(a)4ax.com>, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>On 30 Mar '10 02:30:14 +0 UTC, don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >> You sure you have a handle on additive and subtractive color mixing >>schemas? > > 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 (don(a)misty.com) Thank you for that. Flawless. |