Slashdot Mirror
UCF Research Could Bring 'Drastically' Higher Resolution To Your Phone and TV (ucf.edu)
New submitter cinemetek quotes a report from University of Central Florida: Researchers at the University of Central Florida have developed a new color changing surface tunable through electrical voltage that could lead to three times the resolution for televisions, smartphones and other devices. Current LCD's are made up of hundreds of thousands of pixels that display different colors. With current technology, each of these pixels contain three subpixels -- one red, one green, one blue. UCF's NanoScience Technology Center (Assistant Professor Debashis Chanda and physics doctoral student Daniel Franklin) have come up with a way to tune the color of these subpixels. By applying differing voltages, they are able to change the color of individual subpixels to red, green or blue -- the RGB scale -- or gradations in between. By eliminating the three static subpixels that currently make up every pixel, the size of individual pixels can be reduced by three. Three times as many pixels means three times the resolution. That would have major implications for not only TVs and other general displays, but augmented reality and virtual-reality headsets that need very high resolution because they're so close to the eye.
This is something I have been hoping for for quite some time! This will lead to incredible resolution for VR headsets and that will make all of the difference in how immersive they are.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
I'm not sure if my eyes can see all of the resolution I have.. so I'll take the same resolution I have now, but at half the price please.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
49-55" 4K LCD TVs are currently going for $350. That *is* an order of magnitude cheaper than prices only 2-3 years ago.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
One Hand: Comcast, The Other Hand: Better Value....You can only choose one.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
Current displays do still use subpixels, they're just smaller so harder to see - e.g. read this - https://support.apple.com/el-g...
Yeah but that panel is going to look terrible compared to one from a reputable manufacturer. I'm actually on the lookout for an IBM T221 monitor for my desktop. Its the highest resolution 16:10 display ever made, and that was 15 years ago. The only drawback is a 50Hz refresh but I don't play any games.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Except for the fact that many (I would assume most) colors don't actually fall anywhere on the color spectrum, but are instead a blending of multiple "pure" colors as perceived by our RGB retinas.
Consider even a pure-gas florescent tube - the color of the light given off is actually a combination of the multiple independent emission wavelengths of the element being excited - look at it through a spectroscope and you can see the individual pure colors - none of which closely resemble the color you see with your naked eye.
The most accurate perceived colors would probably actually be achieved by RGB subpixels that perfectly match the excitation frequencies of the cones in our eyes, combined with extremely fine-grained output levels. We can't actually see any other frequencies directly anyway - our color perception is based on interpreting the relative excitation of the three different "band pass filters" embodied in the different kinds of cones.
Though... come to think of it I'm not at all certain they have a simple band-pass style response curve - the detector molecules might actually have fairly complicated multi-peaked response curve.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You're on the right track, but going the wrong direction. It would be sqrt(3) times the resolution.
This change (if it would actually work as imagined, which it would not - color vision is considerably more complicated) would let each sub-pixel be it's own pixel, so you get 3x the pixels in the same area But resolution is a linear measurement. Pixel count goes up with resolution-squared, but we're calculating in the opposite direction.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Since "white" isn't on the color gamut but a blending of multiple colors, how do they do white?
.... effectively shining flashlights into our eyes when we read computer screens and put some work into realizing a commercially viable cmyk display with decent resolution and refresh times on par with that of existing rgb displays.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The most accurate perceived colors would probably actually be achieved by RGB subpixels that perfectly match the excitation frequencies of the cones in our eyes
No, because our cones are blue, yellow-red and yellow-green, with considerable overlap, especially between the two latter ones. To produce a green experience, you need to stimulate the yellow-green cone, but not the yellow-red, and to do that, you need a green emitting pixel. If you try stimulating the yellow-green cone with its exact center frequency, you'll also stimulate the yellow-red cone, and produce a yellow-green experience.
FWIW as you noted, the cones in our eyes have "band-pass" filters in order form them so to accurate receive colors is not really that important the for the RGB spectra of the pixels match the LMS (long medium short) band-pass filters of the cones in your eye, only that the relative response is maintained.
Having said that the way you sense colors is not at all how your eye receives the stimulus from the cones in your eyes. First of all, the colors are not sensed as relative responses, but opponent color responses: L-M (aka R-G), L+M-S (aka Y-B) and intensity. This makes for some interesting colors that are not sensed (e.g., reddish-green and yellowish-blue) and even some "impossible" colors. This amplifies any mismatch in your "filters" so unless they are *exact*, you will sense the difference.
Fortunately (unfortunately?) the way we perceive colors is different than the way we sense colors. Your brain is really painting the colors for your perception in your visual cortex after it's done some "white-balancing" too so what color you remember is a significantly influence by your setting and context. Remember the blue/black dress that broke the internet (or was it gold)?
Long story short, what you think of as perceiving color is really only "hinted" at by the cone response in your eyes. Any ability to distinguish "shades" of color is really a contrast response, not a color frequency response.
Back to this new technology, of course if you are a "traditionalist" and still believe in absolute color and frequency responses and gamuts, probably won't like this new technology at all given these pathetic gamut tracings, but if you follow a bit down the rabbit hole of your visual cortex, and look at what was once possible with Kinemacolor a (simple two-color) processes and realize that what most people think of as color, really isn't how you perceive color at all, it is really all in your head.