Talk:Quattron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questionable value of Queen Mary University analysis[edit]

Having read the analysis (http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~tb300/pub/Appendix_Quattron.pdf) it doesn't seem like they examined it very thoroughly at all. I'm not saying their conclusions are wrong, necessarily, but could they not find their screwdriver that day, or something? Turning the thing on and looking at the colors it produces is obviously of relevance, but the article masquerades as an in-depth investigation and the only mention of the backlight, for instance, is in the caption to a diagram. If it isn't obvious (and even if it is): the backlight is what actually produces the light, so it is of paramount importance, here. --2601:140:8000:A739:5C13:6257:6BC0:8EE2 (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links to de-orphan[edit]

while im confident this subject deserves an article, which will likely expand from a stub as the product reaches market, im reluctant to add too many links, as that may be perceived as overly promotional for this product line. Is this enough for now? love the ad with george takei. OH MY!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have we been lied to all our lives, taught that the three additive colors were enough to to make every color in the visible spectrum? I thought you -made- yellow by combining red and green light.. or something. This needs a thorough explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.169 (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Cone-response.svg references a study showing A) that the rods have a different spectral peak than any of the sets of cones and B) there is the possibility of two very subtly different sets of red cones and two sets of green cones, but the difference is very small and perhaps inconsequential. However the criticisms in the article as far as this particular device are rather convincing and well presented. I'd say the the topic as to whether it is possible to do what the Quattro claims to do (but apparently does not) belongs in an article on human vision, not here, and just link to that discussion from here. (Personal aside, I have to wonder how much more convincing I want my artificial realities becoming) (71.233.167.118 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

how does this technology create the yellow color information when video signals are three-color based (RGB, YPbPr, others)? I suppose it just makes the yellow information as any other RGB TV would do, only it then separates it to a specific yellow light emitter? What's the point? The reason we use three-color systems is because all color information can be recreated this way. Sounds pretty gimmicky to me. More info would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.44.34 (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

while this is not the place to actually debate whether this tech works, i do think that its entirely possible that existing rgb systems dont give us the best color. remember, rgb spectra may be slightly off perfect, and there is no doubt that the wetware in our heads uses chemical sensors that may not be "perfect", so in the real world, additional color spectra may create more "realistic" or at least more interesting colors on tv panels for the human brain. just a theory. i wish i knew more.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Dont know how to post this info so if you could please consider it and perhaps put it into proper format and context. If you consider the color spaces that allow negative values for R G B "Deep Color" I think then RGB signals could specify color on the other side or the R G line (see www.cvrl.org)(YOUR PUREST YELLOW CREATED FROM R AND G IS ON THIS LINE. ADDING BLUE BRINGS YOU TOWARDS THE WHITEPOINT. ADDING NEGATIVE BLUE MOVES YOU TOWARDS THE SUPER SATURATED YELLOW. (BOOM!)(75.23.164.143)

please sign your posts, and please, no capitals. its considered rude, like shouting. comment may be removed if it doesnt help the article. i dont understand your comment. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have touched on a point here... newer color spaces allow for negative numbers in the color signal, which allow for a higher color gamut to be represented. MultiPrimary displays are being developed in anticipation for such wider color gamut encoded material. It is the classic 'chicken' vs. 'egg'... in this case, the display is first, content will come later. In the mean time, a gamut mapping algorithm may "guess" at better colors, as the original real world color had to be clipped to the available color gamut of the original NTSC or sRGB color space, because the displays couldn't show anything better anyway.

DisplayGeek (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable reasoning[edit]

Someone PLEASE explain this to me because this is absolutely senseless, I mean red AND green make yellow, so why add it to the pixel list?Murakumo-Elite (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isnt the place to debate the concept. im sure some commentators will debate this. for my part, i believe them, for the simple reason that real world colors are not the same as ideal colors. for instance, in the real world of pigment colors, if you combine red, green and blue, you dont get black, but dark brown. the pigments are not pure. i suspect that most red, green and blue holiday lights dont make pure white, but an off white. the human eye may be more sensitive to some colors, perhaps in the yellow/brown/gold range, perhaps due to our evolutionary history, so this yellow pixel may make a wider range of subtleties available. also, the brightness of the yellow pixel may help to create a brighter appearance. i think it would be cool if the actual brightness varied on lcd tvs a LOT, so that, say an image of the sun or a bright light really shone out out of the tv, maybe even making hard to look at. again, this is real world implementation of color theory.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, see the link to opponent process in the see also, which may be the basis for sharps technology.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above words "in the real world of pigment colors, if you combine red, green and blue, you dont get black, but dark brown. the pigments are not pure" above show misunderstanding. Red, green and blue lights e.g. from crt phosphors, combine to give white; this is additive colour mixing. In the world of pigment colours, cyan. majenta and yellow combine to give typically a dark brown; this is subtractive colour mixing as done by printing inks (a fourth black ink added for full-range colour printing) but not TVs. 84.209.79.160 (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any sources from the development of this, and why they chose to add another color instead of changing from three equidistant colors in the spectrum to four equidistant colors, which would surely give you an even larger gamut? Is it because red, blue, and green LEDs are cheaper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of using a fourth color, yellow, here provides several benefits. First, it allows for a brighter overall display for a given backlight brightness, similar to RGBW color systems. Second, the green color primary can never be right up against the spectral locus, thus is not able to add with the red to produce the more saturated yellows. But a yellow primary can be made to be more saturated than physically realizable R+G color filters can provide. Thus, the color space is expanded, even if only slightly, along the "line of yellows".

In other multiprimary systems, the fourth color is often cyan or emerald green (stoplight green as opposed to the yellowish green of RGB systems) This allows a color system in which the "line of blues" (actually cyans) is reproducable. Presently, the RGB primary system can only show half of the colors that the human eye can see.

DisplayGeek (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Quattron[edit]

I recently added the "Criticism" section, since Maximum PC Magazine published an article on debunking myths associated with Display technologies. The article goes into great detail about why the Quattron tech is really just a marketing ploy that offers no tangible benefit to image quality. I really feel that the single line "does not in fact produce more colors than a standard RGB set" is not sufficient. There was much more in that article, especially the information about the REC.709 standard and the color balancing performed by studios for home consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhewitt (talk • contribs) 18:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with more material being added. i trimmed it back only because the 2 sentences i removed provide more technical detail than this article itself provides, and its not clear if the conclusion drawn is that of the article writer or us. Rewording the removed content slightly to fit this article better is fine with me, but i wont do it at this time. just a few words, like "he concludes that the yellow has nothing to do" or some such.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I question citing ANYTHING from Ray Soneira. Although he presents himself as THE expert, he has repeatedly shown that he does not understand the latest cutting edge research in multiprimary and subpixel rendered displays. By saying negative things about major display inovations, he fits into the false logic of "the truth lies somewhere in the middle"... in this case, his truth is anything but, and should be cited carefully, not as an expert, but as encyclopedic reference to press coverage. DisplayGeek (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism of less color accurycy with sRGB is certainly valid, because using subpixel rendering or any other technology to "improve" the image quality actually makes the difference between how the image should look according to the signal and how it really looks greater. This might lead to a more realistic image in some cases, but it also might leed to artifacts (e.g. things, that where not there in what was filmed and also not intended by the filmmaker). imho using technologies to improve the gamut only make sense, when the signal is already intended for a wider gamut, of course this is a chicken and egg problem. --MrBurns (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No wider color space, but ...[edit]

The data it gets is RGB, so it cannot create wider color space except by quessing...

But does it produce better subpixel lines for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.83.233 (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several papers from Sharp that show how to improve the horizontal image reconstruction using using subpixel rendering. One paper even showed how to use metamer SPR to improve the horizontal resolution. However, that technology was developed by Nouvoyance and is owned by Samsung. DisplayGeek (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Energy-saving?[edit]

On RGB LED-displays, to produce the color yellow you have to fully turn on the red an green leds. On Quattron displays, you have to turn on only the yellow leds, practically halving the energy (for yellow or other bright colors). Today energy consumption is an important aspect, when buying a new tv, especially, when those screens are 40 inches huge or more.--Sajoch (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

interesting, but do you have a source for this?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sorry, I don't remember the source - I read it somewhere - don't know where. It could well been a Sharp PR-article. But it seems logical to me, that turning on less subpixels, saves energy. Also are Sharp Quattron displays quite less energy-hungry compared to similar sized displays of other vendors, and also compared to older displays of Sharp.--Sajoch (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the article is about LCD displays rather than OLED. Any fully lit pixels require full back lighting (which is where quite a bit of the energy used by a large LCD panel typically goes). While a set with adjustable backlights (full matrix or edge) will be able to give energy saving on darker images (not all set do this!), individual sub-pixel elements in an active matrix display require continuous energy to block out the back light rather then let it through, ie. if yellow is displayed as yellow subpixel on, and red, green and blue off - that is 3 subpixels being powered to bend the light such that it is blocked in the displays polarizing filter. See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-black-is

Note also that many LCD displays featuring LEDs for backlighting are marketted as LED displays, while they work nothing like true OLED displays (which are beyond the price range of most consumers in larger sizes, so I think you are think of LCD panels) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.17.174 (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Rebuttal for Addition[edit]

I understand that augmenting the number of color channels relative to in which the content was recorded results in an unfaithful reproduction. However, if RGB channels are converted to HSB channels, can't the pixels transition smoothly in the order “red, yellow, green, blue” according to the hue to allow for a smoother hue transition? I believe this is an upside to the downside stated by the response section. I don't have any sources for this, so I'll get on that. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 00:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quattron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quattron&oldid=1209925224"