Keep in mind that an LCD TV works with a backlight (LEDs in this case), polarizers/liquid crystals/drivers (that control the amount of light that pass through a given subpixel), and a color filter that has RGB and Y pigments.

The backlight is white and the color filter is subtractive to create the individual subpixel colors. The additive part happens when multiple subpixels are turned on. In that case the light of the different colors is additive as it hits your eye.

Anyway, the color filter does exactly what you say - it has substances that work subtractively with light waves.

I think the point John is trying to make is that we have been led astray in those elementary school demonstrations of the color wheel and primary colors. In fact, three primary colors of limited intensity cannot display every visible color. Some colors won't be displayed. By adding yellow, you widen the gamut w/o sacrificing saturation.

Kodak has been toying around w/ improved Bayer mask patterns that have white or yellow transmitting pixels to improve low light performance, so it seems to make sense on the image acquisition side as well, probably more so.

Which begs the ?, how does Sharp know when the RGB signal it's receiving has been gamut constrained? I imagine there is a way to tell if the color is near or at a gamut clipping value and then guess as to what it should be. Not sure if it's incredibly accurate, but I bet it does look nicer.

Just my humble 2 bits, and I hope they are accurate.

Let me get this straight, "you have to see it to see it" is not only an ad slogan, it's also a disclaimer? If yellow isn't present in the source signal, I won't see it on Sharp's new sets? Let's not forget that xvYCC is pretty much useless in all TV's as it's not part of the DVD or Blu-ray spec. I think the only products supporting it are consumer level camcorders. Isn't the color gamut pretty much fixed under an RGB system? And if so, this yellow pixel must be creating new colors using some sort of upsampling process, much like how 120hz sets generate new frames creating that "soap opera" effect. If that is the case, how true is this to the orignal "look" of the progam material? I'm not saying this new technology is hype. I really am curious how it works.

Coming from a print / design background, I can assure you that there are different colour models for RGB colour spaces. For example, this includes sRGB IEC61966-2.1, Adobe RGB, ScRGB, Apple RGB and Color Match RGB.

Digital camera manufacturers may also have their own RGB profiles that they use when writing the captured data to a file. Professional digital cameras may even give you the choice of which colour model you wish to use when saving the photos.

Welcome to the über-geeky world of colour space and its associated transforms between colour profiles.

Andrew

Yeah 3d shutter glasses last about ten seconds before I feel like destroying them. I'm too young to be old but I feel like innovation in the tv world should be focused in wireless connectivity and content delivery. That said, I will go take a look at one the Quattrons. The science sounds pretty legit.

Frank,

My analogy was focused, not on the equivalance of pixels and razor blades, but on the concept that what the technology is trying to achieve in each case will run into a non-arbitrary limit at some point.

In the TV picture, the current RGB model already creates an functionally realistic view of the world. That's PROVEN by the fact that color broadcasts work. Nobody argues that a modern TV show looks "funny" or that the colors aren't effectively lifelike. So when a company comes along and says that adding another color makes things "better" - you're comparing it to what's achievable in the current system.

I was arguing (clearly poorly) that what all razor blades are attempting to achieve is a good, close, comfortable shave. And at some point, adding extra blades becomes meaningless. You can't argue that if 4 blades in a single cartridge are good - than using 40 would be FUNCTIONALLY any better.

That MIGHT BE precisely analogous to the question at hand about Sharp's adding a yellow pixel.

And it MIGHT NOT.

But if not, it's not because of any similarities or differences between razor blades and pixels.

And now for a spot of trivia ....

Did you know that not every colour can be successfully reproduced by CMYK "full colour" printing?

Many colours, including solid ink (specially mixed single colour) Pantone colours are included in this. For this reason, print jobs can include an additional colour or two applied on the printing press to ensure that a particular corporate identity colour, for example, is reproduced correctly.

Bonus trivia: Many years ago a 6 ink commercial printing system for extended colour reproduction range was devised, but didn't really take off. This is possibly due to the extra expense (and limited press choice) when printing as a 6-head press was required, and the standard CMYK process being "good enough" for people who didn't know the difference.

However, the concept of an extended CMYK full colour printing model lives on in many of todays inkjet printers.

Andrew

Hehe. I know what you mean Bill. I think if Sharp was adding more Green, Red and Blue pixels then your anology would have been perfect.

The thing is, the march of humanities material technology seems to keep-on-keeping-on - quality will always improve. With this march, new standards are reached making the old standards unbearable. If this yellow pixels is another step in raising the standards then all I can say is that it stands to reason. We can poo poo it all we like, but if it's a quality improvement then it's to be expected.

Philosophically I think this is sometimes good and sometimes bad.

Cheers

We shouldn't reference the print world for anything business-related; that industry is in sharp decline. And on the topic of color rendition, when has absolute color accuracy ever been a priority for the general audience? If the "new colors" don't fit into a broadcast specification, they are functionally pointless.

Actually, the print world isn't in decline. I think you are confusing it with the fate of newspapers. Not even the paperless office has kicked in yet.

For many people, standard definition video is good enough because it's what they have always known. For someone who has only grown up with high definition video, going back to standard would be a noticeable difference. I suspect it will be the same with colour rendering: seeing or not seeing those colours that were part of the signal all along.

Andrew

>>
Feb 1, 2010 3:27 PM
InfoTrends has released its "U.S. Printing and Publishing Market Sizing report for 2008 - 2013." According to this latest research, continued decline is projected for the overall printing and publishing industries beyond 2010. While InfoTrends maintains that the economy will resume its recovery which began in the third quarter of 2009, it believes that the printing industry will remain in decline until at least 2013.
<<

That's very interesting. The iPad and its ilk will be having an effect, and so too will people delaying or re-evaluating their needs in a really tough economy.

Did see an article recently where student feedback from a trial at a university rated the electronic book readers as fantastic for leisure reading, but no good for serious study usage with 80% deciding they wouldn't want to go back to using one. Sorry I don't have the link handy to reference it.

Andrew

Wasn't this tried before?!

Vintage Paper Ads - 1972 Panasonic Quatrecolor Television Ad - Four Things!

Super-interesting that they were doing this before the availability of digital processing. Those analogue geeks were something else again!

More adverts: Popular Science and Black Enterprise.

Andrew

Of course they were, who else could think up NTSC?

A & A thanks much for the ads!