# Quatron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

1. Mar 29, 2010

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus

A Gimmick, overreaching, or the new standard?

2. Mar 29, 2010

### pallidin

Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

I've wondered that myself, Ivan.
To some extent I can see the rationale of their technique with respect to enhancing yellow, gold and brass colors. But I don't know. I have not actually seen the display which, presumably, is necessary for that enhanced effect.

If true, however, I can envision industry embracing/expanding this concept of going beyond the standard RGB for color combinations.

3. Mar 29, 2010

### MotoH

Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

Would a man in a lab coat lie to us?

In all seriousness I can't wait to get to best buy to check these TV's out against the other standard RGB ones.

4. Mar 29, 2010

### Pengwuino

Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

I think if this is the "Deep Color" that I've seen hints of here and there (ever since I got my new LCD tv :D), it might be interesting. They're attempting to go beyond the 32bit color scheme and use 48 bits. I wonder if this is the first move into that area?

5. Mar 30, 2010

### Staff: Mentor

Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

This link has some initial impressions:

It does seem that to get a bigger improvement, Sharp would also have to come out with production video cameras (or get Sony to do it) that have the yellow pixels as part of the recorded image...

6. Mar 30, 2010

### Staff: Mentor

Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

A typical monitor does 32 bits (8 bits per color, plus 8 luminance), which equals 4 billion colors. If the human eye can't distinguish that many anyway, what difference does it make going up to 40 bit (1 trillion) colors?

Have a look at this: http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/8343/gradient32bit3ze.png [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
7. Mar 30, 2010

### pallidin

Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

I could be wrong here, but I think the issue is whether having a dedicated yellow pixel enhances visual quality. Instead of the RGB triad we can now have a RGBY quad.

Instead of new cameras, I could see where display electronics could port the yellow to the dedicated pixel as opposed to allocating the entire RGB pixel array to achieve it.
Much like how "standard" red green and blue is done... dedicated pixels.

Just some thoughts...

8. Mar 30, 2010

### Staff: Mentor

Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

Yes. So what does "enhances visual quality" mean? Does it mean we get colors we didn't used to get? And if so, can we tell the difference between ones we've seen before and these new colors?

9. Mar 30, 2010

### Redbelly98

Staff Emeritus
Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

If we can't believe a Federation officer, I am joining the Klingons where honor still means something.

10. Mar 30, 2010

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

It's been a while since I've looked at it, but I've heard it described as color being a convex set in the plane. Given three base colors (e.g. RGB), you can mix them to form any color in the triangle they define, but none of the ones outside of the triangle. If you add in another base, you can get new colors, rather than just a finer discretization of existing colors.

11. Mar 31, 2010

### Staff: Mentor

Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

Ok....[researches]....

Here are two articles about that concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_triangle

The short of it is that you are right. This surprises me, since I would have thought the RGB colors we used were a good match of the sensitivies of our eyes. In other words, why aren't the filters on an RGB grid matched to the wavelength sensitivities of our eyes' color receptors? And how far off are they? And where does this new color lie? I would think if it is on a straight line between red and green (a "true" yellow?), that would mean it wouldn't offer anything new. And why have I never heard of this problem in photography or noticed it in real life?

Last edited: Mar 31, 2010
12. Mar 31, 2010

### mgb_phys

A better example is :

More colors would let you fill in more of the color space than the triangle.
You could also move the three primary colors outward (make the triangle bigger) - but this means darker blue and red filters which means more power to give the same apparent brightness.
This is why you have aRGB, sRGB etc - you optomize the size of the triangle to trade brightness for color fidelity.

13. Mar 31, 2010

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

I can offer some rampant speculation.
• There may have been technical issues (e.g. availability of cheap pigments, what frequencies were emitted by cheap chemicals) originally that have stuck around for the sake of backwards compatibility.
• The colors are optimized for what for what is shown -- e.g. to give finer control over skin tones.
• These colors were once mistakenly believed to generate all colors

aRGB is something else; the a specifies transparency, which specifies how a given color in an image is to be mixed with the background color.

14. Mar 31, 2010

### mgb_phys

Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

aRGB in the sense of adobeRGB gamut (as opposed to HP/MS sRGB) - this is different to RGBA (A=Alpha transparency)

15. Apr 1, 2010

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
I've seen RGBA written ARGB and aRGB as well. I couldn't find any other aRGB when I wrote my post.

16. Apr 6, 2010

### Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Re: Quattron quad pixel technology - From Sharp

I can only comment from the perspective of using fluorescence microscopy. When dealing with colors such as those of fluorescent dyes, nothing on the computer screen ever fully matches what I see with my own eyes through a microscope. The best I can describe it is that the colors are "flatter."

So, strangely enough, I can conceptualize the ability to affect the range of colors viewed by adding another color channel. Though, I haven't seen any of these displays to really know if I can REALLY see the difference. What I do know is that I'm not willing to pay gobs of extra money for whatever difference it can produce, but can only hope it means other people will and it will drive down the prices of currently marketed RGB displays.

17. Apr 6, 2010

### mgb_phys

You could play around with your software and monitor settings (see http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html) or it could be that your dyes are outside the gamut of the monitor - ie it can't display them without some new dyes on the screen.

Your eyes also respond differently looking down a microscope to what you see on a monitor in a brightly lit lab.

18. Apr 6, 2010

### Staff: Mentor

...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.

19. Apr 6, 2010

### Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
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.

20. Apr 6, 2010

### pallidin

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

21. Apr 26, 2010

### 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.

22. Sep 3, 2010

### mugaliens

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

My printer has six colors/cartridges...

23. Sep 3, 2010

### 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.

24. Sep 4, 2010

### 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]

25. Sep 4, 2010

### 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...