44 replies to this topic

[mello yello]

Chopsus, on Sep 18 2010, 11:31 PM, said:

Is it just me that thinks this whole "Yellow" thing is an even bigger con than 3D?

I dont think anything could surpass 3D as the Con Of The Century

[ekkieTHUMP]

mello yello II, on Jan 23 2011, 11:28 AM, said:

I dont think anything could surpass 3D as the Con Of The Century

LMFAO +1 to that  

[kwarrior]

Ok...so now I am going to change my calibration method to accomodate Yellow.....(I will have to add a Yellow Glen to the Reds I consume while doing this!!)     

[Chicken Man]

kirily@selbyacoustics, on Oct 7 2010, 08:42 PM, said:

One theory I have heard is that yellow is a warning colour in nature (ie. Bee's, certain flowers) and appears very infrequently so you are more likely to notice it. Think of yellow school crossing signs, winding road street signs, pedestrian crossing signs. Signs that let us know we have to be careful but not alarmed.

It follows that red is the colour of danger. ie. Stop sign,  no entry sign, speed limit surrounds, give way signs. These signs tell us that something dangerous is just ahead. Red also doesn't not appear frequently in nature and is the colour a human turns when hurt ie. blood!

Green is the most common colour in nature and so is relaxing and reassuring.

So what conclusion can be drawn from the red centre of Australia at sunset ?

C.M

[DrP]

Chicken Man, on Jan 23 2011, 12:02 PM, said:

So what conclusion can be drawn from the red centre of Australia at sunset ?

C.M

"The sky is falling", especially if some of the posts in response to the dreaded yellow emitter are anything to go by.

[Chopsus]

DrP, on Jan 23 2011, 01:40 PM, said:

"The sky is falling", especially if some of the posts in response to the dreaded yellow emitter are anything to go by.

But wouldn't that be the "Blue" emitter? (the Sky?).

[Mining Man]

Chicken Man, on Jan 23 2011, 01:02 PM, said:

So what conclusion can be drawn from the red centre of Australia at sunset ?

C.M

Don't take your baby there?

[DrP]

Chopsus, on Jan 23 2011, 01:56 PM, said:

But wouldn't that be the "Blue" emitter? (the Sky?).

Only if its made out of asbestos.

[mello yello]

Chicken Man, on Jan 23 2011, 12:02 PM, said:

So what conclusion can be drawn from the red centre of Australia at sunset ?

C.M

that the dingo did it ?  

edit : already been done

Edited by mello yello II, 23 January 2011 - 06:52 PM.

[stefcep]

alanh, on Oct 7 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

All,
The human eye consists of predominantly red sensitive, predominantly green and predominantly blue sensitive cones for colour vision and a single type of rods for peripheral and low light vision.
The camera simulates the eye by using a broadband red, green and blue filters in front of the CCD light sensors. The idea is to copy the colour characteristics of the eye.

Not that simple Alan.

Yes color vision BEGINS with the three Red Green and Blue photopigments in the cones (incidentally there are very few blue-sensitive cones).  The rods are sensitive to brightness not color.  These four different photoreceptors then synapse with other retinal cells to ultimately create 3 neural (ganglion cell) pathways  : the Red-Green pathway, the Blue-Yellow pathway and the luminance pathway.  

There might be something to it afterall.

[Brazzwald]

It's been a while since i posted and even looked on DTV forum, something drew me back here, i'm not sure what, but reading through this thread there is a lot of discussion about whether quattron is a gimmick and what yellow means in nature....

.... but not once did i see if someone has actually seen a Sharp Quattron in the flesh, and what they thought of the picture?  C'mon guys

I've seen it, and i think it kills most other LED / LCD panels on the market ...

but as per usual, this is just my opinion

brazzwald
(back on deck, now two kids growing up super fast, and works a bitch! so no time for dtv foruming ... until now)

[Owen]

I have seen the “Quattron” and was very unimpressed, colour was very obviously wrong at the default settings and apparently it cant be calibrated to be accurate either.

[jrp001]

In the retina rods outnumber cones by a factor of 20 and they are 10,000 times more sensitive to luminance than chrominance

The eye therefore reacts predominantly to luminance of a colour picture, much more than to it's chrominance.

[heath_147]

Chopsus, on Sep 19 2010, 12:01 AM, said:

Is it just me that thinks this whole "Yellow" thing is an even bigger con than 3D?

I think it is a con because when i looked at a Sharp Quattron next to a normal LCD screen in Jb-Hifi i saw NO difference whatsoever!!

[jsmith]

Seems this is still rather gimmicky for now... this may improve as other manufacturers use the same panels in future models and work out how to best balance the colours with the yellow subpixel.

Quote from here;

"Consider this HDTV if: you like a bright picture that pops with extra color saturation, as the Sharp indeed fulfills its promise of a richer color palette.

Look elsewhere if: you want a set that provides a color palette that more closely matches that of the Rec. 709 HDTV color gamut specification, and would therefore provide a picture that more closely matches that seen by the content producer at the TV producer or movie studio."

It does seem though Sony and Phillips will be using these types of panels soon, quote from here;

"Sharp's new Sakai plant is the cornerstone in the production of 60-inch and 68-inch panels.

The Sakai plant will also supply the new Quad Pixel panels to Philips and Sony later in 2010. Sharp's models are, however, the first ones to utilize the new quad pixel structure."

JSmith

[stefcep]

jrp001, on Jan 30 2011, 12:45 AM, said:

In the retina rods outnumber cones by a factor of 20 and they are 10,000 times more sensitive to luminance than chrominance

The eye therefore reacts predominantly to luminance of a colour picture, much more than to it's chrominance.

No it doesn't.  The relative numbers of rods versus cones is irrelevant.  And the function of the rods is not to provide color discrimination, but the detection of dim objects or moving objects.  What the "eye reacts to" is complex.

Firstly the distribution of rods and cones across the retina is not uniform.  Lots of cones centrally, lots of rods peripherally.  Secondly, the cones each have a single nerve dedicated to their signals, whereas many rods will converge onto a single nerve fibre, meaning cones can discriminate fine details and rods cannot.  Thirdly the rods are only operational at low ambient light levels.  Consequently,  it is whether the cones or rods are operational that determines what the "eye is reacting to", and this in turn depends on the ambient light levels, the location of the object in the visual field being viewed, and the objects size.

Vision is mediated solely by the cones in daylight light levels (photopic vision).  This allows colors to be perceived and fine details to be resolved.  The eye will move so that an object of interest casts an image in the fovea, the central 1.0 mm of the retina.  The fovea is the part of the eye used for straight ahead, fine vision.  The fovea is occupies about 1% of the size of the retina but its mapped to over 50% of the brain that makes sense of the incoming retinal signals.  Under photopic ambient lighting conditions, the eye responds to different colors and brightnesses, because this is what the the cones are sensitive to.  What is actually perceived is dependent on the wavelength of light, the type of cone that that wavelength of light strikes and  the light's intensity  Note that some wavelengths appear brighter than others irrespective of their relative light intensity.  The rods play no role in mediating photopic vision.

In dark ambient light level eg no moonlight or street lights, the cones are not operational and vision is mediated solely by the rods ("Scotopic vision").  The vision perceived is coarse, colorless and primarily geared to detecting the presence of dim or moving objects.  Under these conditions the eye reacts to differences of light intensity, although blue light appears brightest, beacsue this is the wavelength of light that rods are most sensitive to, but we don't see that as blue light, just "brighter" light (Purkinje effect).

In twighlight conditions, eg at night under street lighting, or viewing at the cinema or with the light off, both rods and cones are operational (mesopic vision), with an increase sensitivity to blue due to the Purkinje Effect ie because rods are more senitive to blue light.  Nevertheless, color vision and fine discriminations is still mediated solely by the cones, the cones still provide luminance information and the rods are still limited to providing coarse peripheral vision based on brightness and movement.  

So due to mesopic vision, even with the lights out, (or at the cinema) your TV is still a color TV, and you can still see fine details, because your cones are operational 'though the screen doesn't have to be as bright due to the increased sensitivity to low light levels that rods provide, and if theres something happening in the corner of the screen, your rods will detect it, and your eye will move to put that image on your fovea where your cones can tell you what it is and what color it is, and how bright it is.

Edited by stefcep, 30 January 2011 - 04:30 PM.

[Roderick]

Adding a yellow pixel is supposed to allow for more accurate colour rendition.  It increases the colour gamut and make skin tones more realistic -- at least that's what I read in one article recently.

It also has the advantage of a square pixel pattern -- four colour pixels making up the corners on one square uber pixel.

There is nothing particularly scientific about colour rendition; it's a bit of a black art really.   It boils down to whatever people think looks more natural and realistic.  Perceptions, not mathematics.

In the long run, the market will determine what method survives -- that and the economics of it all.

Rod

[swordfish805]

All I know is: ROY Gibson Bites Indian Virgins

[jrp001]

stefcep, on Jan 30 2011, 04:18 PM, said:

No it doesn't.  The relative numbers of rods versus cones is irrelevant.  And the function of the rods is not to provide color discrimination, but the detection of dim objects or moving objects.  What the "eye reacts to" is complex.

Firstly the distribution of rods and cones across the retina is not uniform.  Lots of cones centrally, lots of rods peripherally.  Secondly, the cones each have a single nerve dedicated to their signals, whereas many rods will converge onto a single nerve fibre, meaning cones can discriminate fine details and rods cannot.  Thirdly the rods are only operational at low ambient light levels.  Consequently,  it is whether the cones or rods are operational that determines what the "eye is reacting to", and this in turn depends on the ambient light levels, the location of the object in the visual field being viewed, and the objects size.

Vision is mediated solely by the cones in daylight light levels (photopic vision).  This allows colors to be perceived and fine details to be resolved.  The eye will move so that an object of interest casts an image in the fovea, the central 1.0 mm of the retina.  The fovea is the part of the eye used for straight ahead, fine vision.  The fovea is occupies about 1% of the size of the retina but its mapped to over 50% of the brain that makes sense of the incoming retinal signals.  Under photopic ambient lighting conditions, the eye responds to different colors and brightnesses, because this is what the the cones are sensitive to.  What is actually perceived is dependent on the wavelength of light, the type of cone that that wavelength of light strikes and  the light's intensity  Note that some wavelengths appear brighter than others irrespective of their relative light intensity.  The rods play no role in mediating photopic vision.

In dark ambient light level eg no moonlight or street lights, the cones are not operational and vision is mediated solely by the rods ("Scotopic vision").  The vision perceived is coarse, colorless and primarily geared to detecting the presence of dim or moving objects.  Under these conditions the eye reacts to differences of light intensity, although blue light appears brightest, beacsue this is the wavelength of light that rods are most sensitive to, but we don't see that as blue light, just "brighter" light (Purkinje effect).

In twighlight conditions, eg at night under street lighting, or viewing at the cinema or with the light off, both rods and cones are operational (mesopic vision), with an increase sensitivity to blue due to the Purkinje Effect ie because rods are more senitive to blue light.  Nevertheless, color vision and fine discriminations is still mediated solely by the cones, the cones still provide luminance information and the rods are still limited to providing coarse peripheral vision based on brightness and movement.  

So due to mesopic vision, even with the lights out, (or at the cinema) your TV is still a color TV, and you can still see fine details, because your cones are operational 'though the screen doesn't have to be as bright due to the increased sensitivity to low light levels that rods provide, and if theres something happening in the corner of the screen, your rods will detect it, and your eye will move to put that image on your fovea where your cones can tell you what it is and what color it is, and how bright it is.

sorry could you give me more detail as i don't understand

[stefcep]

jrp001, on Jan 31 2011, 07:09 PM, said:

sorry could you give me more detail as i don't understand

yes: it should matter, but there's no accounting for taste.