Slashdot Mirror
RGB to become RGBCMY
elgatozorbas writes "The basic color elements of television have not changed much since 1954; a half-century after RCA introduced the first color set, the RGB (red, green and blue) system used then still prevails. But Israeli company Genoa Color Technologies has broken the RGB barrier by adding one to three primary colors such as yellow, cyan and magenta, thus expanding - from 55 to 95 percent - the coverage of the visible color gamut. The promised result of this multi-primary color (MPC) technology is a television picture that, with its truer, more vibrant color and brighter image, looks more like cinema than video. Also covered in IEEE Spectrum."
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
1. The CMY data will be there in addition to RGB
2. Film uses CMY
There are a couple of factual errors in this story that makes me feel uneasy.
. html
From the spectrum article:
While film used in cinema contains pigments that can create an infinitely large number of color variations, TV sets combine discrete amounts of red, green, and blue light to create a much more limited color range.
This isn't true: color slide film uses three layers, just like monitors do: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/E100G/E100G
He says that in printing it's common to have inkjet devices that use six, seven, or even eight primaries.
There are good reasons printing uses so many primaries, but it's usually to make an evener tone. My consumer-grade printer has the traditional CMYK (cyan magenta yellow blacK), but it also has two additional colors: light-cyan and light-magenta. They chose these lighter colors so make the blending smoother and the ink spots less noticible; it wasn't to increase the gamut. Printers also use spot-color to make particular colors (such as a company logo) print without needing to use a halftone. These are all just gimicks to get around the fact that printing isn't continuous tone -- in projectors that are continuous tone, these tricks aren't needed.
Basically, it comes down to eyeballs... if you emulate the response curves that your eye is sensitive to, then you can't perceptually do any better.
The traditional RGB's and CMY's don't match these curves, so they define a gamut that can be improved on. For example, take this projector's gamut -- its green is far away from the eye's green, so it can't display the cyans well. But, the color model my company is using for its video product uses a much truer green so we can cover much more of the gamut.
disclaimer: IANACE (color expert), but my most recent project has been color calibration to precise standards.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
they're talking about combining the two, not switching to cmyk, so you would have 4 to 6 elements (RGB plus 1-3 others) which would give you "truer" color reproduction than rgb alone
at least that's my understanding.
Also, each of the three colors commonly used (rgb) are artificially dark, with each one blocking about 2/3 of the light (since the only let that one color through). So if you think about it, your "white" background is really not as bright as it could be. Some DLP projectors I think use red, green, blue, and white to get some of this contrast back. But I think these guys have a more interesting idea. Your cyan pixel, letting through both blue and green light, would be brighter than either your plain blue or plain green or blue&green next to each other.
Red, green and blue make up the additive color, or light wheel. When you have all frequencies of light, the light comes out white, when you have no light, it is black. These are the primary colors of light, which is what you learn in physics class.
What you're describing is subtractive color, or pigmentation. When you have no pigments, the canvas is white, when you mix all the colors together, you have black. These are the more familiar primary colors that you learn about in art class.
Responsibility is the punishment for compentenc
There are three primary additive colors and three primary subtractive colors. Cecil explains it rather well.
This isn't a new standard, it's just an after effect applied to existing signals. In the same way that high end sets have special filters such as a comb filter which gets rid of the jagged comb like fingers from rapidly moving objects on interlaced TV images, this is something that just makes existing TV look better. In other words, there will be HDTV sets with this, and HDTV sets without it. Although if it is as cheap to integrate as they suggest then it might become common on all sets (and other display devices).
Since they are supposedly coming out with sets later this year, I would probably wait myself if I were about to drop a couple grand on a new set and get a look at the technology in the show room.
Maybe it's because we're spoiled with the high resolution of computer monitors, but I can barely stand to watch normal TV, even the majority of the newer plasma/LCD TVs have horrible images. There's a lot of room for improvement. The best ones I've seen in my opinion are DLP rear projection sets, but then I haven't really kept up with it the last year or so, so there might be better looking stuff out there now.
disclaimer: IANACE (color expert), but my most recent project has been color calibration to precise standards.
Parent has very good info, but if anyone wants additional reading, this guy is a color expert
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
RGB and CMYK are counter-productive.
RGB are Additive Colours. (You add them together to create White)
CMY(K) are Subtractive Colours. (You add them together to get black)
CMYK has been used in the Colour-copier/printer industry for a long time. It depends on using White paper to 'iluminate' the colours that have been added.
RGB + CMYK negate each other. Considering that any combination of RGB can give you any colour, CMYK can't (for example) give you 'floresent' colours {without cheating}.
CRT's use glowing phospher (sp?), LCD's use a white-light to illuminate the coloured pixels that have been turned 'on'. By this definition CRT's naturally use an RGB approach, while LCD's naturally use a CMYk approach. I think it's just been a faulty evolution to keep LCD's emulating the RGB approach. this CMYK idea will only work if the video card companies make seperate product lines.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
NTSC throws away 3/4 of the colour information, and even HD throws away Half. From the article, it seems as if the chip is doing a lot of guessing and not "really" incresing the colour resolution. This sounds like a good way to go, since the Codec on the DVD won't have to deal with those extra colours; it's handled at display.
What would REALLY be awesome is if we had monitors that could display light as we see it in reality, ie a full spectrum of wavelengths. RGB just uses pyschological tricks to make our brains into thinking we seeing multiple colours.
Of course!
In fact, to be really accurate we would have to allow for negative RGB, too, because additive RGB is also not enough to cover human vision.
24-bit color is pretty pathetic. It's very easy to construct scenarios that break down. For example, a subtle gradient from light brown to dark brown across a monitor will show banding without alot of ugly dithering. Yet this is a scenario that happens often in movies (yes I know there is YUV conversion involved here, too).
Human vision is alot more complicated than people realize. It's not just pure frequencies of the spectrum or else we could not see brown, pink, etc. It's not compartmentalized to red/green/blue because there is a response curve for each rod and cone in the retina. And it definitely is not compartmentalized to 256 values per component.
In reality the difference in brightness between dark shadows and sunlight is a factor on the order of billions, not 256. That's why HDR displays are just as important as HDR rendering.
Not true, there are a few colors that are out of gamut on an RGB display.
-jim
Not to be a nag, but that's not what a comb filter does, bud. It seperates the Luminance from the Chrominance in an analog TV signal. When viewed on an oscilloscope, the peaks of each alternate with each other, giving the appearance of a comb.
Most folks don't realize, but there really are four primary colors. Most geeky types are familiar with the red, green, and blue cone cells in our eyes -- but the rod cells that are used for night vision have their own separate response spectrum, weighted heavily toward the blue/violet end of the spectrum.
That means you have four separate "detector systems" in your eye, each of which is sensitive to a different slice of the optical spectrum. In particular, you can distinguish shades of violet and magenta that differ only in the blue-cone/rod response levels.
Ever think about why blue light is used universally to signify "darkness" or "moonlight" on stage? It's because, in low light levels, your cones shut down and your rods -- which in bright light connote blueness -- are the only part of your retina that works well.
It's also the reason why night-vision flashlights are red, and why blue LEDs appear so bright when used as flashlights. The red light doesn't stimulate your rods, preserving their sensitivity; and the blue light gives you extra rod stimulation per unit power, making blue LEDS very efficient as nighttime illumination.
while the RGB color space may be able to display any color, the RGB phosphors are not. So its possible for the CMY phosphors to be able to enhance and expand the color space that the normal set of color phosphors can show.
Ignorance speaks! RGB is a basis set only if you allow negative values of color. What does negative red look like? (Hint: it isn't green)
Actually, there is no such thing as inherently "additive" and "subtractive" colors; what happens is when you project light through a colored filter, the colors are additive (cyan, yellow, and magenta filtered light will blend to white just like red, green, and blue will), and when the light is reflected from them (as in the case of pigments applied to a surface), they are subtractive (red paint plus green paint plus blue paint will give you black, just like CMY paints or inks will).
Got mead?
Long text, but completely wrong, sorry.
Intensity isn't the issue. If you want a more intense (255,41,0), increase the contrast on your monitor. We can certainly reproduce RGB color in (literally) blinding brightness and with better intensity resolution than the human eye can differentiate, all within the confines of simple RGB.
The problem is that there are colors which cannot be described by mixing the same three wavelengths as for every other color. This is because there is no way to stimulate the three different color receptors independently. Take a 500nm green for example. According to this diagram, a 500nm green light stimulates only the green and blue receptors, but not the red receptors. Now let's try to simulate 500nm by mixing RGB. The R in RGB is about 645nm, the G 526nm and the B 444nm. You see that the closest match would be to use only the green gun, but at 526nm, it also stimulates the red receptors, so our simulated color is a little off. The same problems arise with other relatively pure colors.
As I recall, a linear combination of RGB can express any possible color -- if you allow for negative amounts of the components. A really bright yellow might be 1 R + 1 G - .2 B for example.
That's still a linear combination, but just one that's not particular useful in the real world of phosphors and filters.
Thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
RGB is a set of orthogonal colors, and a linear combination of RGB can express any color in the universe. Similar comments apply to CMY
No, this isn't even remotely true. Even if we assume you only meant the visible spectrum, RGB still only covers a small section of it (well, ok, a little more than half of it).
For example, how do you generate a true violet colour of around 400 nm when the blue in RGB is usually 450 nm? It can't be done (well, it can be faked but see below).
For more info about the colour gamut of RGB I recommend you go here:
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mer/colour/cie.html
Really, RGB only really works because it's a close match to the 3 colours our eyes are sensitive to. The mapping of RGB to wavelength is based on purely empirical Colour Mapping Functions. Even then the CMFs fail for certain colours such as those around 500 nm (i.e. your monitor can't reproduce 500 nm).
If one had the technology to vary the intensity of red, green, and blue over an infinite set of real values, then RGB would be able to perfectly replicate any color.
Wrong. Take a look at a CIE Chromaticity diagram and you'll see that no matter what three wavelengths you choose as your primary set, there will be some colors you can't mimic.
The shareholder is always right.
Here's a link:
IRODORIRGB, CMY, CMYK, etc... *cannot* represent the entire visible color gamut. YIQ (the one used by NTSC TV), YUV (PAL TV), and YCrCb represent a smaller gamut than RGB, to be sure, but neither represent the whole thing.
For that, you need a more complex model like CIELAB.
Here's some links:
A whole lot of information.
Samsung stating that their shiny DTV sets can't match the visible gamut.
A graph of visible, RGB, Pantone, and CMYK gamuts
CMY are really "combinations" of R G and B.
They are on your standard RGB monitor, but not in the general case. For example, take a look at the CIE "Tongue" chart displayed e.g. here. With you monitor, you can only display colors in the red, green, blue triangle, but one could add pure cyan at 490nm and actually increase the area/gamut.
Second, there are colors that your eye can perceive that are not representable by the RGB system.
That would be the good old RCA, phosphor based RGB system. If you ran your display with e.g. lasers with 410, 520 and 700nm respectively, you could get a gamut that's almost indistinguishable from the full gamut the average eye can percieve. The smaller area covered in the green region on top of the chart would probably be neglegible due to the decreased capability of the eye to distinguish between greens. So, not RGB is the problem, but the technology to record and display it.
Well, I think I should have all my comments modded as -5 idiot.
As many of you have pointed out, My momma must have dropped me on my head when I was a child.
I was wrong with the statments that I made. I was purely thinking of the "painter" analogy, and not the "flashlight".
Sorry, please feel free to delete this thread.
I am an idiot.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
The curved edge represents pure sine waves. There is nothing outside that area.
That's mostly a result of the different gamma value. TVs are darker and the MPEG algorithm (the psychovisual model) is tuned to make use of the lower intensity resolution in the darker areas. When watching MPEGs on computer screens, the dark areas are shown brighter than on TV, so the artifacts become visible.
... you're going to need a format that preserves color information in the new 5 color system if you're going to exploit the real improvements in this color technology: closer reproductions of actual color.
Absolutely not true.
For people with normal color vision, in addition to the "rod" pigment (which is not a significant player in color perception and daylight central vision) there are three color receptor pigments located in the "cone" cells, which have broad reception peaks with well-known shapes. The response of those three sets of cells to an image can be accurately modeled by using three sets of sensors and filters that model the three pigments' frequency response.
The problem comes when, given this measurement, you try to stimulate a viewer's cone cells to produce the response equivalent to the light you measured. If you just pick three color phosphors at the peak of the three dyes' response curves, you find that the colors don't stimulate JUST the cones you intended. The green light, for instance, will strongly stimulate the green-responsive cones. But it will also weakly stimulate the red and blue cones. Similarly, red light will strongly stimulate red cones, weakly stimulate green cones, and very weakly stimulate blue cones. Ditto the other way around with blue light.
This has two effects:
First: Even within the range of combinations of stimulus the three light sources can produce, simply playing back the signal will cause the results to be somewhat more pastel than the orignal scene. This can be compensated for to some extent - by subtracting out appropriate amounts of each color's signal from the signals going to the others color emitters.
Second: You can't make the emitters emit a negative amount of light. The result is that there are scene colors, saturated and nearly-saturated colors between the phosphor colors you chose for reproduction, that can produce color sensations that these three screen colors can't reproduce. These scene colors will ALWAYS apper somewhat washed-out if you only reproduce the image with three screen colors.
So with three values you can accurately transmit any color a normal eye can see. But with three phosphors you can't make the eye see some of these colors.
The two-dimensional representation of the relative responses of the three dies looks something like a spearment leaf with the base sliced off. (See figure 12 of this web page. And thank you, canavan) The edge of the leaf represents the response to a pure spectral color, and regions within it to mixes of colors. If you try to reproduce the response with three phosphor colors, you are picking three points on the leaf edge and drawing a triangle between them. By adjusting the relative amounts of light from the three phosphors you can produce a stimulus corresponding to any point WITHIN the triangle. But you can't produce one corresponding to the arcs of the leaf that are outside the triangle.
But by picking more points along the leaf edge you can draw a polygon and hit any point within it. This covers more of the leaf and leaves fewer colors missing. (Indeed, just a couple extra points can give you most of the leaf.)
You still send the signal with the three values corresponding to the response you want from the eye. But now your monitor processes it into more than three colors to put on the screen, to get the eye to respond more closely to the response it would have had to the original scene.
(Note that people with some forms of color blindness have cones with pigments that have abnormal frequency responses. Such people will not see a color TV image as right even with this upgrade, because the camera will not have correctly encoded what THEIR eyes would have seen. They need a camera with a different response, and yet another set of phosphors in the monitor, to get a good match.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way