121–130 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also can't produce white or anything else in the interior of this diagram (as well as, as you mention, shades of magenta and purple that lie on the flat lower edge): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Planckia...
The human eye will see white when a pixel flashes through all of the colors quickly in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> achromatic camera Is that the same as a panchromatic camera? Edit: Asking because I have a 410x410px hyperspectral imager that has an aligned 1886x1886px panchromatic imager that is use to perform pan-sharpening of the HSI data bringing it up to 1886x1886. I'd never heard of a panchromatic camera before I got involved in this business and I've never heard of an achromatic camera either. All I seem to find is achrom…
Yes, "panchromatic" is probably the more accurate term for it. It's just a camera with no color filters and a known spectral response curve that's high enough across the frequencies being imaged.
A single wavelength can't reproduce all visible colors. These pixels are variable wavelength, but can only produce one at a time, so you'd still need at least 2 of these pixels to reproduce any visible color. The fundamental problem is that color space is 2D[1] (color + brightness is 3D, hence 3 subpixel on traditional displays), but monochromatic light has only 1 dimension to vary for color. [1]: https://en.wikipedi…
This seems like a non-problem, cut the display resolution in half on one axis and reserve two 'subpixels' for each pixel. Then you have a full color display with only one physical pixel type and that needs one less subpixel. These displays could even produce some saturated colors with specific wavelengths that can't be represented on regular rgb displays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Emissive means additive, not averaging. Cyan, magenta and yellow are not primaries here. Red and green light adds up to perceptual yellow. Red, green and blue adds up to perceptual white (or grey, at very low luminance). Treating each of these pixels like subpixels (which is arguably a form of dithering) will produce a full color image (at a lower resolution), but given that they did not demonstrate it, color reprodu…
That's not true. Dithering can be used in emissive screens, but dithering is not additive. If you mix red and green with color blending (e.g. by dithering), you get less red and less green in your mix, and therefore the resulting mix (a sort of ochre) is different from additive color mixing (yellow), where the amount of red and green stays the same. Or when you mix black and white, you get white with additive color m…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKnqECcg6Gw
I am saying you can think of subpixels, which already exist, as a form of dithering. Most displays use just three primaries for subpixels - red, green and blue. Their arrangement is fixed, but that is not a limitation of this new technology.
I understand that one of the big issues with microLED is huge brightness variation between pixels. Due to some kind of uncontrollable (so far) variations in the manufacturing process, some pixels output 1/10 the light (or less) as others. Ultimately the brightness of the whole display is constrained by the least bright pixels because the rest have to be dimmed to match. Judging by their pictures they have not solved…
> I understand that one of the big issues with microLED is huge brightness variation between pixels. Due to some kind of uncontrollable (so far) variations in the manufacturing process, some pixels output 1/10 the light (or less) as others. I instead understand that this is false. Available MicroLED screens (TVs) are in fact brighter than normal screens. The issue with MicroLED is instead that they are extremely expe…
Does that in any way contradict the claim that there are large variations in brightness between microLED pixels on the same screen?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The human eye will see white when a pixel flashes through all of the colors quickly in time.
How quickly? Surely well above 1 kHz (1000 FPS). Otherwise you will see flickering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I understand that one of the big issues with microLED is huge brightness variation between pixels. Due to some kind of uncontrollable (so far) variations in the manufacturing process, some pixels output 1/10 the light (or less) as others. I instead understand that this is false. Available MicroLED screens (TVs) are in fact brighter than normal screens. The issue with MicroLED is instead that they are extremely expe…
> Available MicroLED screens (TVs) are in fact brighter than normal screens. Does that in any way contradict the claim that there are large variations in brightness between microLED pixels on the same screen?
A single wavelength can't reproduce all visible colors. These pixels are variable wavelength, but can only produce one at a time, so you'd still need at least 2 of these pixels to reproduce any visible color. The fundamental problem is that color space is 2D[1] (color + brightness is 3D, hence 3 subpixel on traditional displays), but monochromatic light has only 1 dimension to vary for color. [1]: https://en.wikipedi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> color space is 2D Human eyes have three different color receptors, each tuned for it's own frequency, so it's already 3d. However, apart from human perception, color, just like sound, can have any combinations of frequencies (when you split the signal with Fourier transform), and may animals do have more receptors than us.
In this sense our hearing is much better than our color vision. We can distinguish the combination a huge number of frequencies between 20-20000Hz. But we can only distinguish 3 independent colors of light. Of course our vision is vastly better than hearing for determining where the sound/light comes from.
Anybody know the answer?