Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where to Find the Colors Your Screen Can't Show You

moultano.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 138 posts

Re: Where to Find the Colors Your Screen Can't Show You

#81

Post by ralfd »

SideQuark wrote: post #29
frotaur wrote: post #17

Its unclear to me why the color space is 2-dimensional. Why wouldn't it be a 3-dimensional space, indexed by how much each of the 3-cones is activated ? Not clear to me from the article!

It is 3 dimensional. That commonly repeated CIE diagram is a 2d slice of the color volume. Since 1931 that diagram is obsolete, misleading, and fails at a lot of modern color science, and has been replaced many times, but is what many people go to. The most recent replacement (well, by CIE), is CIE 2015. Comment on it [1] Modern color modeling is much richer then 3 parameters, because human vision is much more comple…

> CIE 2015

Does that look like 3d?

Re: Where to Find the Colors Your Screen Can't Show You

#82

Post by [deleted] »

adrian_b wrote: post #21

While it is true that some saturated blue-green colors will never be reproducible with only 3 primary colors, the CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram used in TFA overemphasizes their importance, because human vision cannot distinguish many colors in that area of the diagram. In reality, the greatest defect of the sRGB color space, which is still too frequently the default color space, is that it is not able to reproduce ma…

[deleted]

Re: Where to Find the Colors Your Screen Can't Show You

#83

Post by mr_toad »

rollulus wrote: post #22

What I missed in the article: the curves of the three “cone kinds” overlap. What if you could stimulate kinds of cones individually to see entirely new colors? Some people shoot layers at them into eyes. But you can also try this website: https://dynomight.net/colors/ (previously on HN but search fails me).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy

Re: Where to Find the Colors Your Screen Can't Show You

#84

Post by js2 »

adrian_b wrote: post #21

While it is true that some saturated blue-green colors will never be reproducible with only 3 primary colors, the CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram used in TFA overemphasizes their importance, because human vision cannot distinguish many colors in that area of the diagram. In reality, the greatest defect of the sRGB color space, which is still too frequently the default color space, is that it is not able to reproduce ma…

> The full Rec. 2020 color space can be reproduced only with laser projectors, because it uses monochromatic primary colors.

All of the non-commercial triple laser projectors I'm aware of are single-chip DLP, so they suffer rainbow artifacts and have poor black levels. They're also liable to laser speckle[^1] if you're not careful on your screen selection.

The JVC (LCoS), Sony (LcoS) and Epson (LCD) laser projectors all use a single blue LED laser and phosphor wheel to make white light, then use prisms and filters to split it to RGB and can only get 87-98% of DCI P3. They have better blacks and no rainbow artifacts, but the color reproduction is not as complete.

Which is to say, it's still a compromise in projector land, unless you've got $400K for a https://www.christiedigital.com/products/projectors/all-proj...

[^1]: https://www.valerion.com/blog/triple-laser-speckle

Re: Where to Find the Colors Your Screen Can't Show You

#85

Post by PebblesRox »

klabb3 wrote: post #54
adrian_b wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, "Figure 3" from that article should be a realistic depiction of the differences between sRGB, Display P3 and BT.2020. It is true that both the red and green primary colors of sRGB are bad (because they correspond with obsolete CRT phosphors that have not been used for decades), but in practice the defects of the green primary color are much less important, because the objects with saturated green colors are m…

> Only very rarely I have seen examples with obvious differences between monitors when showing green objects, e.g. some documentaries with certain vividly colored animals, like some insects, birds, frogs or lizards. According to the article you get purified greens from transmittance through foliage, ie backlight in eg a maple forest. This makes me suspect that it may be more important than just exotic animals, and ma…

I think the lack of depth perception in a 2D photo is another big factor in why the magic of a forest can’t be captured. There are so many different layers that all get flattened!

Re: Where to Find the Colors Your Screen Can't Show You

#86

Post by mceachen »

whiw wrote: post #79

If we had a display with n (n>3) pixel colours, say (red, green, cyan, blue) for example, we could display more of the colour space. Shopping list: 4 colour channel display, 4 channel GPU, 4 channel software. Why isn't this a thing already?

More than 3 channel displays have been attempted by several companies, but I suspect they fail due to:

1) trying to convince content makers to use new custom high-gamut hardware to capture the new spot colors

2) you'd need a full video content production pipeline that can render to that color space

3) finding enough people to care enough to pay the (substantial) premium for niche production numbers.

4) Most content just doesn't warrant high gamut unless it's narrated by David Attenborough.

So, you have both a chicken and egg problem, and not that big of a TAM to warrant the struggle.

Re: Where to Find the Colors Your Screen Can't Show You

#88

Post by rbanffy »

klabb3 wrote: post #54
adrian_b wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, "Figure 3" from that article should be a realistic depiction of the differences between sRGB, Display P3 and BT.2020. It is true that both the red and green primary colors of sRGB are bad (because they correspond with obsolete CRT phosphors that have not been used for decades), but in practice the defects of the green primary color are much less important, because the objects with saturated green colors are m…

> Only very rarely I have seen examples with obvious differences between monitors when showing green objects, e.g. some documentaries with certain vividly colored animals, like some insects, birds, frogs or lizards. According to the article you get purified greens from transmittance through foliage, ie backlight in eg a maple forest. This makes me suspect that it may be more important than just exotic animals, and ma…

There is so much going on in a modern digital camera between what the sensor captures and what is stored on the flash card that you might be a perfectly fine photographer and it’s the software in the camera that just doesn’t get your style.

Re: Where to Find the Colors Your Screen Can't Show You

#89

Post by rbanffy »

szmarczak wrote: post #46
adrian_b wrote: post #21

While it is true that some saturated blue-green colors will never be reproducible with only 3 primary colors, the CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram used in TFA overemphasizes their importance, because human vision cannot distinguish many colors in that area of the diagram. In reality, the greatest defect of the sRGB color space, which is still too frequently the default color space, is that it is not able to reproduce ma…

There's color space and there's color depth. You may be using D-P3 with 8 bit, which is worse (less accurate?) than sRGB with 8 bit. And there's bandwidth. Your monitor may not be able to handle 4k 240fps 16 bit.

> 4k 240fps

As a cinema enthusiast, I say 24 fps ought to be enough for anyone.

Post reply on HN