Quatron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

russ_watters

...they also respond differently to looking through a telescope than looking through a microscope or at a monitor. Except for Mars and Jupiter, there really isn't much color depth to be seen with your eyes out in space. Most objects are too dim to stimulate your color receptors much. So when I do photography, the colors (from a CCD and RGB display) are vastly richer than you can see with your eyes.

Moonbear

Isn't that the point of this product? It's adding a new "dye"?

I'm aware of that, but I don't view the monitor in a brightly lit lab. When I'm working with images, I do so in a dimly lit room to better see what's on the screen.

Of course, it may also have to do with the detector rather than the monitor.

I don't know if this technology really makes a difference or not, I'm just commenting that I can envision the possibility. It's useless to look at videos using my current monitor to determine the quality of the product this ad claims. I'd have to go to someplace where the display was being sold and see it for myself to know if I could see an improvement or not.

pallidin

Ditto. The general tech makes sense, but the proof is in the viewing using the actual displays.

Frame Dragger

This is interesting, but I find advnaces in power consumption and B&W contrast far more interesting in the LCD side of things. After all, sharpening the yellow is really nothing more than a juke to the side from the issue of not producing a true greyscale to black. Now, something like 3Qi's screen tech is far more interesting, and practical.

mugaliens

Why not six colors? They fit quite well in hexagonal patterns.. :)

My printer has six colors/cartridges...

pallidin

True, but why not then go for it all: 16,777,216 for 24-bit true color? Just kidding!

As you increase the color array, you also increase its size. This could easily cause annoying pixelation.
Or, if you reduce the pixel size to compensate for increase in array size, you could loose luminosity.
Advances in technology will of course address both issue a little at a time.

mugaliens

Yah, ha, lol...

Yet with both printer heads and LEDs, as the pixel size has continued to decrease, the color array has also decreased, to the point where my photographic printer spits out 8x10s which rival that of 25 ASA film from the sixty's.

I think 25 ASA. Might be 25 DIN. All I know is that it's far more sharp, and rich, than any 8x10 print from that era.

I also do much large reproductions from my 8 mp camera. These cost much more, around $45, but when I do them right (interpixellating the image and performing similar color corrections before output), they fetch some decent prices ($300) for that $45.

Then again, I'm a very good photographer, so I capture what people want. That's the difference.

This could easily cause annoying pixelation.
Or, if you reduce the pixel size to compensate for increase in array size, you could loose luminosity.
Advances in technology will of course address both issue a little at a time.[/QUOTE]

mugaliens

Bottom line, I think things will ultimately find their way to a six pixel "illuminon," along with a small enough pattern that no one will be able to discern at a distance of 24 inches or more.

Why do I think this? Because at this limit, we have arrived!

Oh, yes, there are both black and white limites (the technical terms) as well as the "contrast ratios" (the marketing terms).

Just beware the difference between the technical terms and the marketing terms...

FlexGunship

Just give Gillette a few months and they'll come out with a TV that has five. Schick will follow with one that has six. Then Gillette will add a pixel color to the back of the screen for watching very small shows.

Mech_Engineer

For what it's worth, MaximumPC has a "debunking" of Sharp's Quattron tech:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/fea...specs?page=0,4

FlexGunship

Oh man. I forgot I wrote this. I read it, and was like "LMAO, who the hell wrote that?" And it was Flex! I'm losing my freakin' mind.

EDIT: By the way, I do some work in the printing industry, and additional colors outside of CMYK are only useful in subtractive coloring (i.e. mixing ink or paint), but not in additive coloring (i.e. light).

http://www.printingforless.com/color.html

christopherV

huge gimmick!!!

The problem would be in the recording medium...
The a professional video camera has 3 chips for recording color (RGB) which has the highest sensitivity to green to produce a response more like the human eye. (thats why professionals prefer green screens with video, there is more information on the green channel and it produces a clearer matte).

So if the camera is not recording the yellow channel then the TV must calculate the yellow channel from the available information (RGB) and I wouldn't expect there to be a huge difference until Panavision or another major camera manufacturer begins producing professional 4CCD camera.

film on the other hand has much greater color depth then digital; especially in the 4K range (for theatrical release) and you could see improvements there, however most films are processed and edited digitally, and the digital capture process relies on a 3CCD system.

I think it will go the way of beta-max.

Mech_Engineer

Few people know, but the technology has already gone the way of the Dodo once... Panasonic tried it in tube TV's

Mech_Engineer

Here's an interesting review for a European model of the Quattron, notice the calibration test:


http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.p...&id=1287569264

...and a quote from AVSForum regarding the review linked:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1237271&page=6

pallidin

Wow. Nice find on that TV pic. I had no idea.

Max™

Mr. Stomatopod laughs at your pitiful visual capabilities!



http://arthropoda.files.wordpress.co...-vs-mantis.jpg

Albern

Hi everyone,,
I see this video,,, It is really amazing and give a lot of information...
SO i recommended to see this video...