4 ms·

Your sarcasm does not become you. Neither does your ignorance. If you actually worked in the field of color management, like I do, you would know that, as with

by teilo 16y ago

Your sarcasm does not become you. Neither does your ignorance. If you actually worked in the field of color management, like I do, you would know that, as with subtractive pigments, so with LEDs: There is no such thing as a pure primary in the real world. It is impossible to create an LED or a color of ink that is mathematically perfect pure Red, Green, or Blue. Because of this it is impossible for an RGB-only display to display all colors that are visible to the human eye. (Let's exclude UV-florescence from the equation for the sake of simplicity). RGB displays use color correction curves and various profiling tricks to correct for the difference between the pure primaries and the actual light being output by the LEDs. Yellow LEDs can extend the color range of an RGB display into areas of the gamut that the display could not otherwise "hit". The same could be said for (presumably theoretical) Cyan or Magenta LEDs.

ugh 16y ago
How does the technology used to capture the video factor into that? I would assume that with capturing only RGB you already limited the color space – the information is lost – and you cannot extend it, no matter what you try. I know that, when printing, additional colors can help because the RGB space doesn’t map exactly to the CMYK space. There are RGB colors you just cannot get with CMYK. Are the RGB(capture) and RGB(display) color spaces so different that additional colors can help? I would assume they would have to be, wouldn’t they?
- teilo 16y ago
  The capture technology actually has little to do with it. First of all, yes, only so much can be captured. But no one broadcasts, in raw form, exactly what they capture. They filter and transform it in all sorts of ways, adding, replacing, and shifting color. Also, consider how much content is digitally generated, where any arbitrary color can be specified, by the numbers. There is no capture device. HDMI 1.4 specifies color spaces that, at present, no display can fully reproduce. As time goes on, there will be more hi-fi content that can target such displays when they are invented. Also, it is common to print in the Adobe98RGB colorspace. Hi-fi printers can do it. There is a lot of content in Adobe98. There are, however, very few displays that can display it.
- dedward 16y ago
  You cannot get back information - no, although you can artificially guess and make something that looks better in some situations. But just because you recorded in one RGB space doesn't mean the particular display you are using can reproduce that exact RGB space - take any dozen RGB flat-panel displays and see if their color gamuts match up exactly. They probably don't - so while I'm ignorant of whatever feature the yellow is trying to achieve here - whether it's just fluff or actually filling out a deficiency in the output of their LCD gamut - either way, their display with the added yellow pixels can produce colours that their previous displays could not.
  - ugh 16y ago
    I have no doubts about its ability to display a wider range of colors. It’s just that after attending a few lectures about data transmission I rather got the feeling that those responsible for designing the compression and coding would rather quit and sail the South Pacific than transmit stuff that’s not actually used. That might just have been a by-product of all the compression and coding I learned about being really old (PAL, NTSC), newer stuff might be a lot more forward looking (as teilo suggested).
hristov 16y ago
You should not call other people ignorant. Your explanation is very confused. You are confusing subtractive color mixing (as in printing) with additive color mixing (which kind of happens in LED displays although LED displays are not purely additive, but they are definitely not subtractive in any way). Honestly I have to admit I am not certain why the Sharp display uses yellow pixels, but it has nothing to do with what happens in printers, as they operate on quite different principles.
- teilo 16y ago
  My explanation may be confusing to you, but it is certainly not confused. I did not confuse additive and subtractive primaries, and I clearly know the difference. It is my job to know the difference. I have profiled everything from litho presses, to numerous ink jets, displays of every kind, scanners, cameras, and light-jet photographic emulsion printers. It just so happens that the same essential principles apply to either. Both reflective and emissive color gamut can be expanded by adding non-primary colors. People tend to understand ink on paper better than they understand light. I used it as a point of comparison. Furthermore, color printing is no more "mixing" inks than display technology is "mixing" LEDs, LCD cells, or CRT phosphors. Discreet cells. Discreet dots. Same principle.
  - hristov 16y ago
    "Discreet cells. Discreet dots. Same principle." It would be the same principle, if color printing were only about placing discrete colored dots next to each other in order to form new colors, but that is not usually the case. Color printing usually involves placing different color inks over each other, and that makes everything different. In any case, if you are curious, look up wikipedia for subtractive color and additive color and color mixing.

by teilo 16y ago

ugh 16y ago

How does the technology used to capture the video factor into that? I would assume that with capturing only RGB you already limited the color space – the information is lost – and you cannot extend it, no matter what you try. I know that, when printing, additional colors can help because the RGB space doesn’t map exactly to the CMYK space. There are RGB colors you just cannot get with CMYK. Are the RGB(capture) and RGB(display) color spaces so different that additional colors can help? I would assume they would have to be, wouldn’t they?

teilo 16y ago
The capture technology actually has little to do with it. First of all, yes, only so much can be captured. But no one broadcasts, in raw form, exactly what they capture. They filter and transform it in all sorts of ways, adding, replacing, and shifting color. Also, consider how much content is digitally generated, where any arbitrary color can be specified, by the numbers. There is no capture device. HDMI 1.4 specifies color spaces that, at present, no display can fully reproduce. As time goes on, there will be more hi-fi content that can target such displays when they are invented. Also, it is common to print in the Adobe98RGB colorspace. Hi-fi printers can do it. There is a lot of content in Adobe98. There are, however, very few displays that can display it.
dedward 16y ago
You cannot get back information - no, although you can artificially guess and make something that looks better in some situations. But just because you recorded in one RGB space doesn't mean the particular display you are using can reproduce that exact RGB space - take any dozen RGB flat-panel displays and see if their color gamuts match up exactly. They probably don't - so while I'm ignorant of whatever feature the yellow is trying to achieve here - whether it's just fluff or actually filling out a deficiency in the output of their LCD gamut - either way, their display with the added yellow pixels can produce colours that their previous displays could not.
- ugh 16y ago
  I have no doubts about its ability to display a wider range of colors. It’s just that after attending a few lectures about data transmission I rather got the feeling that those responsible for designing the compression and coding would rather quit and sail the South Pacific than transmit stuff that’s not actually used. That might just have been a by-product of all the compression and coding I learned about being really old (PAL, NTSC), newer stuff might be a lot more forward looking (as teilo suggested).

hristov 16y ago

You should not call other people ignorant. Your explanation is very confused. You are confusing subtractive color mixing (as in printing) with additive color mixing (which kind of happens in LED displays although LED displays are not purely additive, but they are definitely not subtractive in any way). Honestly I have to admit I am not certain why the Sharp display uses yellow pixels, but it has nothing to do with what happens in printers, as they operate on quite different principles.

teilo 16y ago
My explanation may be confusing to you, but it is certainly not confused. I did not confuse additive and subtractive primaries, and I clearly know the difference. It is my job to know the difference. I have profiled everything from litho presses, to numerous ink jets, displays of every kind, scanners, cameras, and light-jet photographic emulsion printers. It just so happens that the same essential principles apply to either. Both reflective and emissive color gamut can be expanded by adding non-primary colors. People tend to understand ink on paper better than they understand light. I used it as a point of comparison. Furthermore, color printing is no more "mixing" inks than display technology is "mixing" LEDs, LCD cells, or CRT phosphors. Discreet cells. Discreet dots. Same principle.
- hristov 16y ago
  "Discreet cells. Discreet dots. Same principle." It would be the same principle, if color printing were only about placing discrete colored dots next to each other in order to form new colors, but that is not usually the case. Color printing usually involves placing different color inks over each other, and that makes everything different. In any case, if you are curious, look up wikipedia for subtractive color and additive color and color mixing.