Exciting New Monitor Technology
MH_Stevens
wrote on 8/21/2006, 8:14 AM
Comments
Coursedesign
wrote on 8/21/2006, 8:49 AM
That looks quite promising...
I'm glad I'm not a manufacturer who just put down $4B on a new LCD plant, after just having spent $1B to close my old CRT manufacturing plant... :O)
I'm glad I'm not a manufacturer who just put down $4B on a new LCD plant, after just having spent $1B to close my old CRT manufacturing plant... :O)
JJKizak
wrote on 8/21/2006, 8:54 AM
Perhaps this new technology can reproduce "Dayglo" colors. When I worked there the lab told me that tere was nothing on the market that would reproduce (on a monitor) phosphorescent colors.
JJK
JJK
Chienworks
wrote on 8/21/2006, 4:25 PM
I see a couple of problems that the article didn't address. For one thing, i don't believe "white" LEDs are pure white. They have a distinctly bluish glow. Even if that's corrected for, they seem to spike at some frequencies in the spectrum and give a fluourescent-type color cast. Hardly a good source for true-color images.
Secondly, the source being fed to these screens is still going to be RGB for the foreseeable future. Just because a new output screen is avialable doesn't automatically retool all the dlivery systems. Even if future delivery systems go to HSI, it will still be limited by the number of bits used to carry the channels. HSI needs more bits to cover a colorspace than RGB does because it isn't as efficient an encoding system. It might take 12 bits for HSI to look as good as 10 bit RGB, and even that is far far from real life color. Heck, even if they go back to analog there's still a resolution limit, and all the analog artifacts and noise as well.
Secondly, the source being fed to these screens is still going to be RGB for the foreseeable future. Just because a new output screen is avialable doesn't automatically retool all the dlivery systems. Even if future delivery systems go to HSI, it will still be limited by the number of bits used to carry the channels. HSI needs more bits to cover a colorspace than RGB does because it isn't as efficient an encoding system. It might take 12 bits for HSI to look as good as 10 bit RGB, and even that is far far from real life color. Heck, even if they go back to analog there's still a resolution limit, and all the analog artifacts and noise as well.
Logan5
wrote on 8/21/2006, 4:37 PM
“Muscle flex” what if your monitor gets a cramp?
GlennChan
wrote on 8/21/2006, 5:20 PM
Perhaps this new technology can reproduce "Dayglo" colors. When I worked there the lab told me that tere was nothing on the market that would reproduce (on a monitor) phosphorescent colors.
You can reproduce the *appearance* of photofluorescent colors on a monitor... you can make some colors appear neon if you boost saturation in a particular way. However, it's not the real deal- our monitors can't reproduce highly highly saturated colors.
This new technology seems to be able to do that- it should be able to come close to showing (almost) every visible color / spectrum of wavelengths.
For one thing, i don't believe "white" LEDs are pure white. They have a distinctly bluish glow. Even if that's corrected for, they seem to spike at some frequencies in the spectrum and give a fluourescent-type color cast. Hardly a good source for true-color images.
That shouldn't be a problem, although it might hurt light output.
They may use special LEDs with more phosphor types in it, so that it is more even throughout the spectrum of wavelengths.
Secondly, the source being fed to these screens is still going to be RGB for the foreseeable future. Just because a new output screen is avialable doesn't automatically retool all the dlivery systems. Even if future delivery systems go to HSI, it will still be limited by the number of bits used to carry the channels. HSI needs more bits to cover a colorspace than RGB does because it isn't as efficient an encoding system. It might take 12 bits for HSI to look as good as 10 bit RGB, and even that is far far from real life color. Heck, even if they go back to analog there's still a resolution limit, and all the analog artifacts and noise as well.
The new HDMI spec allows for a extremely wide color gamut... I think it covers all visible colors.
With RGB systems (i.e. a computer + Photoshop), color management will allow the user to see the entire gamut the monitor can handle. This can be through the DVI or VGA interfaces already in use... so no new technology or interface is needed.
You can reproduce the *appearance* of photofluorescent colors on a monitor... you can make some colors appear neon if you boost saturation in a particular way. However, it's not the real deal- our monitors can't reproduce highly highly saturated colors.
This new technology seems to be able to do that- it should be able to come close to showing (almost) every visible color / spectrum of wavelengths.
For one thing, i don't believe "white" LEDs are pure white. They have a distinctly bluish glow. Even if that's corrected for, they seem to spike at some frequencies in the spectrum and give a fluourescent-type color cast. Hardly a good source for true-color images.
That shouldn't be a problem, although it might hurt light output.
They may use special LEDs with more phosphor types in it, so that it is more even throughout the spectrum of wavelengths.
Secondly, the source being fed to these screens is still going to be RGB for the foreseeable future. Just because a new output screen is avialable doesn't automatically retool all the dlivery systems. Even if future delivery systems go to HSI, it will still be limited by the number of bits used to carry the channels. HSI needs more bits to cover a colorspace than RGB does because it isn't as efficient an encoding system. It might take 12 bits for HSI to look as good as 10 bit RGB, and even that is far far from real life color. Heck, even if they go back to analog there's still a resolution limit, and all the analog artifacts and noise as well.
The new HDMI spec allows for a extremely wide color gamut... I think it covers all visible colors.
With RGB systems (i.e. a computer + Photoshop), color management will allow the user to see the entire gamut the monitor can handle. This can be through the DVI or VGA interfaces already in use... so no new technology or interface is needed.
Steve Mann
wrote on 8/25/2006, 12:15 AM
"For one thing, i don't believe "white" LEDs are pure white. "
This is correct, "white" LED's are very narrow bandwidth devices.
Phillips is experimenting with a new LED technology that is 4X as bright as the brightest high-intensity LED and has a broad spectrum that is closer to sunlight than any artificial source today. Their stated goal is to replace incandescent lamps altogether.
Steve M.
This is correct, "white" LED's are very narrow bandwidth devices.
Phillips is experimenting with a new LED technology that is 4X as bright as the brightest high-intensity LED and has a broad spectrum that is closer to sunlight than any artificial source today. Their stated goal is to replace incandescent lamps altogether.
Steve M.
farss
wrote on 8/25/2006, 5:32 AM
That's not entirely true, some white LEDs mix RGB to produce 'white' however as the three source are indeed narrow bandwidth the result is a rather strange 'white' light.
However better white LEDs are not really LEDs, they use a UV LED to excite a phosphor producing very good white light, as good if not better than fluro tubes.
And then we have the Light Panel and Zylight LED source, for my money the Zylight is a revolutionary piece of design, selectable CT, variable color and very even light distribution (lens less LEDs).
Bob.
However better white LEDs are not really LEDs, they use a UV LED to excite a phosphor producing very good white light, as good if not better than fluro tubes.
And then we have the Light Panel and Zylight LED source, for my money the Zylight is a revolutionary piece of design, selectable CT, variable color and very even light distribution (lens less LEDs).
Bob.