While the rest of the TV industry goes romping off into the third dimension, Sharp has decided to do its own thing by focusing instead on the "fourth pixel". The "Quattron" technology in its new range of Aquos-brand LCD sets gives them yellow pixels in addition to the standard red, green and blue primary colours.

Read the rest of the glowing review of the very real model here (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/05/08/review_hd_tv_sharp_aquos_lc_46le821e/).

Given the expanded colour gamut that is in HD video (he says without referring back to the manual for his Sony camera to double-check), this should be quite an interesting development.

Andrew

No offense to Sharp, but there are many technical reasons that no other manufacturers are spending time on that side of the lab. Frankly it's just a big marketing gimmick..

Disclaimer: I work here: Sharp Laboratories of America (http://sharplabs.com)

When I first saw our yellow pixels (Quattron) TVs at CES in January, I wasn't so sure about it. The rushed prototypes on the show floor showed aliasing, and they were adjusted to be overly bright and saturated. More recently, I got to evaluate some of the first production models - and the images look great. There's no hint of aliasing - in fact, the edges and contours are extremely smooth. And the color adjustments out of the box were ideal: bright and saturated, without being too aggressive.

One place where I would differ with the reviewer was about "Standard Mode". (They thought it was a bit dark and dull.) I tried a photo that I shot myself on the TV from a USB stick. I thought that Standard looked the most natural and had the most depth.

FWIW, here is the photo:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/eos-5d-mk-ii-sample-clips-gallery/156201-post-your-photos-lens-processing-info-5.html#post1520525

There are a few things to note about the technology. You can't just add a 4th subpixel to any old display without some sacrifice. That extra subpixel steals some real estate from R, G & B. If the dots have a lot of metal (slits and ribs) blocking the light, shrinking the dot size will really lower the efficiency.

Sharp solves that with the X-Gen panel that uses UV to control the liquid crystal material. That means we don't need metal ribs to spread an electromagnetic charge. With the larger aperture dots, we can add the fourth subpixel and keep the brightness high. In turn, we can turn down the backlight (and the power), because we can pass light so efficiently. And, of course, yellow was chosen since it has the highest luminance of any color. We gain both more color control and higher brightness. (A white subpixel would give even more brightness, but would tend to desaturate bright images.)

The other advantage is that while most 1080p TVs have about six million subpixels, the Quattrons have eight million. With proper phase alignments on every sub-pixel, that effectively gives 33% more resolution than we get with an RGB TV.

Some people have claimed that the 4th color is a scam, since broadcasters only deliver RGB. But keep in mind that high-end printers have twelve or more inks in order to reproduce colors that cannot be achieved with only three color pigments. It's the same story with the yellow sub-pixel. Also, with the yellow pixel placed beyond the gamut triangle formed by RGB, we can push the green color further up and toward cyan. We can now create green with a combination of blue and yellow or with our new, shifted green color. So, not only do we have more control over yellows and golds, but we have more control over cyans and greens as well.

Comparing the Quattron to our own models, we get sharper edges, a wider, more vibrant yet natural range of colors, and more subtlety on smooth color gradients. Where previous models showed some contour lines, the new model shows smooth gradations. With more control between yellow and red, face tones are natural looking as well. Faces don't seem to teeter between too red or too green so easily.

Anyway, there's more to the technology than just an additional color. Many people are used to working in RGB and dismiss the idea without considering the difference between signals and physical pigments.

The bottom line is that the implementation looks great to my eyes - against both our older models and against the competition. The next time you're in an electronics store, take a look and see what you think.

Nuff said. Disclaimer mode off...

Hi Jon,

So glad you popped in with your answer direct from the horses mouth (as much as possible), so to speak. If I'm in the market for a new TV and the Sharp doesn't cost too much extra, I'd definitely be swung towards the new tech.

Adding on 3D abilities is comparatively straight forward, whereas this sort of thing (disclaimer: haven't seen one myself yet) is genuine nutting-it-out innovation. Colour me impressed!

Andrew

No offense to Sharp, but there are many technical reasons that no other manufacturers are spending time on that side of the lab. Frankly it's just a big marketing gimmick..

Its funny to say its a gimmick when the rest of the companies are doing 3d with those ridiculous shutter glasses. I have not looked at this TV in the stores yet but I have looked at the 3d TVs and don't like them at all. There is even talk that after prolonged use of these glasses, REAL depth perception could be affected, possibly permanently.

Just for giggles here are the pixels of my RGB X-gen panel from my Sony 52EX700. Not the RGBY panel but you get the idea.

http://www.angelfire.com/al/metalalien/video/52ex701_pixel4.jpg

Andrew,

Definitely take a look in person before making your decision. Hopefully, it will look as good to your eyes as it does to mine.

I'm not sure about the Australian models, but in the US, the TVs include a "demo mode" that's worth seeing. If the people in the store haven't lost the remote control, they should be able to activate it.

One thing that I believe is unique to the US is that we get TV ad with George Takei (Star Trek's "Mr. Sulu") and his "oh my" catchphrase. YouTube - Sharp Electronics Quattron quad pixel technology w George Takei (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hSnAxvRdmY)

The 4th subpixel isn't just a marketing gimmick. But hiring George Takei certainly is! :)

I agree with you on George Takei. I'm not right in the middle of American culture, but is there a real benefit to hiring him to be on a commercial? I know that he's been on Star Trek and all, but it's just not working for me. I just don't get it.

Andrew

I think it works in the US. Older people remember him from the original Star Trek, people in the middle know him from the Star Trek movies, and young people know him from his role in Heroes. My sons (18 and 22) and their nerdy friends think he rocks. :)

Isn't the essential core issue ADDITIVE color verses SUBTRACTIVE color?

In printing, more ink varieties work better because you're essentially BLOCKING the reflectance of certain color wavelengths of light with every print path. More color ink variations allow you to block specific light frequencies better e.g. using LIGHT BLUE to block reflectance rather than a pattern of primary BLUE). Creating some colors by printing mixtures of other multiple colors LOWERS efficiency. The more colors you print, the denser and less colorful/bright the image becomes.

In TV, with ADDITIVE color, you derive Yellow simply by firing both blue and green, and as you do so, you INCREASE brightness toward white. A process TOTALLY different from printing.

I think George Takai is very cool, and I hope he gets paid a LOT for the ads. I also admire his risking damage to his career coming out so publicly and I applaud Sharp for hiring him.

But the ads make me immediately think "snake oil for the poorly educated." Sorry, George.

(Either that or I just don't understand the underlying technology, which I freely admit is quite possible.)

Promoting a fourth subpixel has been a real challenge. The quote: "snake oil for the poorly educated" sums up the reaction of many people. The difficulty that we've had is with the moderately educated. I know a number of imaging experts with doctorates here at the lab who have to noodle it out and are only convinced after seeing the diagrams, the math, and the implementation. The cool thing is that once they get it, they start to think about ways to push the concept to the next level. People who understand how RGB is used, but don't have doctorates in color theory are a tougher sell!

The best way to explain it is to show the CIE Color System chart.

The one below shows the limits of color reproduction with three additive pigments. Though you can see the whole range of colors, the reproduction system is only capable of rendering a gamut within the triangle formed by the three points.

If you shift the green pigment to the right, you can capture more yellow, but it comes at the expense of the cyans. Shift green to the left and you can reproduce more cyans, but at the expense of the yellows and golds. You could simply push the green pixel up, but we are limited by the physical pigments that are available.

With Quattron TVs, we add the yellow pixel to the right of the triangle. We then shift the green pixel to the left and slightly toward the curved peak on the CIE chart. The result is a larger gamut as defined by the four points.

And, yes, we lose a small corner right at the current green dot. But we gain a much larger amount in the cyans and yellows. Overall, we can reproduce a wider range of green tones. In the real world, green isn't a single 100% saturated green point, but a whole range of tones that might lean slightly toward yellow or cyan. The gain outweighs the slight loss many times over with real pictures.

We could have added a cyan pixel and shifted the green toward the yellow. That would have also extended the gamut, but we would have lost efficiency. And with an additional white pixel (many have barked up this tree), you gain efficiency, but lose saturation. Because yellow is the brightest color, it allows the best balance between brightness and gamut.

The secret sauce, of course, is in how the RGB signals are mapped to an RGBY (with green pushed toward cyan) space. And that's where the technical tour ends. It's also where one needs to look at the results and judge it with their own eyes.

To summarize the technology:
* It extends the available gamut.
* It uses UV for a wide aperture, giving high efficiency so we can add yellow and maintain brightness.
* Yellow is used because it is both bright and colorful.
* By adding yellow we can shift green, providing more gamut in the cyan area as well.
* It provides 33% more subpixels, which allow more detail to be reproduced.
* It provides more available gradations, since the color space is more finely defined - especially in the shorter path between yellow and red; yellow and green.

Also, note that extended gamut has been a hot topic for some time in the display community. xvYCC was developed specifically for displays with extended gamut: xvYCC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XvYCC) And xvYCC is part of the HDMI spec. HDMI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI)

But the theory only counts if the implementation is good. That's why the George Takei ad offers the call to action: "You have to see it to see it."

OK, I'm willing to keep an open mind.

But I have to say I'm still confused. Particularly by your use of "pigment" in your explanation. My brain is struggling to separate that from the idea of a SUBSTANCE that works subtractively with light waves.

If you're telling me that adding a 4th generator of LIGHT in the yellow spectrum allows you to generate more colors of light, a more appealing spectrum of colored light, or some other demonstrable qualitative improvement in picture, then I'll continue to reserve judgement until I experience it for myself.

But right now it's kinda like the razor blade wars to me. We're up to what? SIX separate blades in the damn things? And sure it's a fine shave. But will a 10 blade system be "better"? What about 25 blades? Will we someday have a single razor cartridge the size of my entire cheek so I can shave half my face in a single one inch stroke? At what cost?

At heart, while the comfort of my daily shave has certainly improved somewhat over the years. The COST of the razor blades has increased at a FAR faster rate. If someone had told me I'd be paying $10-15 for a pack of razor blades at some point in my life I'd have laughed at them.

I don't laugh, but I certainly resent the fact that I can't go to the drug store and easily buy anything with fewer than 4 blades these days - and at a MUCH inflated price point compared to the older system.

Still I'll reserve my opinion until I learn more.

Thanks for your time, Jon to help us all understand the tech.

ah...that razor blade anaolgy sounds terrible.

not all pixels are created equal - they have four different colours in fact. where as razor blades are all the same and they do the exact same job.

Suffice to say that this wouldn't have been able to be achieved in an analogue world.

It's only thanks to digital processing that the complex colour re-mapping can be achieved in order to make the most of this extra pixel colour source.

Andrew

I haven't even upgraded to Blu Ray. I am perfectly happy with DVD and you can really see the difference between the two.

This kind of tech is totally meaningless to me. It's cool they are trying new things but it will be VERY hard to make me care.

But I have to say I'm still confused. Particularly by your use of "pigment" in your explanation. My brain is struggling to separate that from the idea of a SUBSTANCE that works subtractively with light waves.

Keep in mind that an LCD TV works with a backlight (LEDs in this case), polarizers/liquid crystals/drivers (that control the amount of light that pass through a given subpixel), and a color filter that has RGB and Y pigments.

The backlight is white and the color filter is subtractive to create the individual subpixel colors. The additive part happens when multiple subpixels are turned on. In that case the light of the different colors is additive as it hits your eye.

Anyway, the color filter does exactly what you say - it has substances that work subtractively with light waves.

I think the point John is trying to make is that we have been led astray in those elementary school demonstrations of the color wheel and primary colors. In fact, three primary colors of limited intensity cannot display every visible color. Some colors won't be displayed. By adding yellow, you widen the gamut w/o sacrificing saturation.

Kodak has been toying around w/ improved Bayer mask patterns that have white or yellow transmitting pixels to improve low light performance, so it seems to make sense on the image acquisition side as well, probably more so.

Which begs the ?, how does Sharp know when the RGB signal it's receiving has been gamut constrained? I imagine there is a way to tell if the color is near or at a gamut clipping value and then guess as to what it should be. Not sure if it's incredibly accurate, but I bet it does look nicer.

Just my humble 2 bits, and I hope they are accurate.

Let me get this straight, "you have to see it to see it" is not only an ad slogan, it's also a disclaimer? If yellow isn't present in the source signal, I won't see it on Sharp's new sets? Let's not forget that xvYCC is pretty much useless in all TV's as it's not part of the DVD or Blu-ray spec. I think the only products supporting it are consumer level camcorders. Isn't the color gamut pretty much fixed under an RGB system? And if so, this yellow pixel must be creating new colors using some sort of upsampling process, much like how 120hz sets generate new frames creating that "soap opera" effect. If that is the case, how true is this to the orignal "look" of the progam material? I'm not saying this new technology is hype. I really am curious how it works.

Coming from a print / design background, I can assure you that there are different colour models for RGB colour spaces. For example, this includes sRGB IEC61966-2.1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srgb), Adobe RGB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RGB_color_space), ScRGB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScRGB), Apple RGB and Color Match RGB (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=427175).

Digital camera manufacturers may also have their own RGB profiles that they use when writing the captured data to a file. Professional digital cameras may even give you the choice of which colour model you wish to use when saving the photos.

Welcome to the über-geeky world of colour space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space) and its associated transforms between colour profiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_profile).

Andrew

Its funny to say its a gimmick when the rest of the companies are doing 3d with those ridiculous shutter glasses. I have not looked at this TV in the stores yet but I have looked at the 3d TVs and don't like them at all. There is even talk that after prolonged use of these glasses, REAL depth perception could be affected, possibly permanently.

Yeah 3d shutter glasses last about ten seconds before I feel like destroying them. I'm too young to be old but I feel like innovation in the tv world should be focused in wireless connectivity and content delivery. That said, I will go take a look at one the Quattrons. The science sounds pretty legit.

ah...that razor blade anaolgy sounds terrible.

not all pixels are created equal - they have four different colours in fact. where as razor blades are all the same and they do the exact same job.

Frank,

My analogy was focused, not on the equivalance of pixels and razor blades, but on the concept that what the technology is trying to achieve in each case will run into a non-arbitrary limit at some point.

In the TV picture, the current RGB model already creates an functionally realistic view of the world. That's PROVEN by the fact that color broadcasts work. Nobody argues that a modern TV show looks "funny" or that the colors aren't effectively lifelike. So when a company comes along and says that adding another color makes things "better" - you're comparing it to what's achievable in the current system.

I was arguing (clearly poorly) that what all razor blades are attempting to achieve is a good, close, comfortable shave. And at some point, adding extra blades becomes meaningless. You can't argue that if 4 blades in a single cartridge are good - than using 40 would be FUNCTIONALLY any better.

That MIGHT BE precisely analogous to the question at hand about Sharp's adding a yellow pixel.

And it MIGHT NOT.

But if not, it's not because of any similarities or differences between razor blades and pixels.

And now for a spot of trivia ....

Did you know that not every colour can be successfully reproduced by CMYK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMYK_color_model) "full colour" printing?

Many colours, including solid ink (specially mixed single colour) Pantone colours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantone) are included in this. For this reason, print jobs can include an additional colour or two applied on the printing press to ensure that a particular corporate identity colour, for example, is reproduced correctly.

Bonus trivia: Many years ago a 6 ink commercial printing system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexachrome) for extended colour reproduction range was devised, but didn't really take off. This is possibly due to the extra expense (and limited press choice) when printing as a 6-head press was required, and the standard CMYK process being "good enough" for people who didn't know the difference.

However, the concept of an extended CMYK full colour printing model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CcMmYK_color_model) lives on in many of todays inkjet printers.

Andrew

Frank,

My analogy was focused, not on the equivalance of pixels and razor blades, but on the concept that what the technology is trying to achieve in each case will run into a non-arbitrary limit at some point.

In the TV picture, the current RGB model already creates an functionally realistic view of the world. That's PROVEN by the fact that color broadcasts work. Nobody argues that a modern TV show looks "funny" or that the colors aren't effectively lifelike. So when a company comes along and says that adding another color makes things "better" - you're comparing it to what's achievable in the current system.

I was arguing (clearly poorly) that what all razor blades are attempting to achieve is a good, close, comfortable shave. And at some point, adding extra blades becomes meaningless. You can't argue that if 4 blades in a single cartridge are good - than using 40 would be FUNCTIONALLY any better.

That MIGHT BE precisely analogous to the question at hand about Sharp's adding a yellow pixel.

And it MIGHT NOT.

But if not, it's not because of any similarities or differences between razor blades and pixels.

Hehe. I know what you mean Bill. I think if Sharp was adding more Green, Red and Blue pixels then your anology would have been perfect.

The thing is, the march of humanities material technology seems to keep-on-keeping-on - quality will always improve. With this march, new standards are reached making the old standards unbearable. If this yellow pixels is another step in raising the standards then all I can say is that it stands to reason. We can poo poo it all we like, but if it's a quality improvement then it's to be expected.

Philosophically I think this is sometimes good and sometimes bad.

Cheers

We shouldn't reference the print world for anything business-related; that industry is in sharp decline. And on the topic of color rendition, when has absolute color accuracy ever been a priority for the general audience? If the "new colors" don't fit into a broadcast specification, they are functionally pointless.

Actually, the print world isn't in decline. I think you are confusing it with the fate of newspapers (http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/). Not even the paperless office has kicked in yet.

For many people, standard definition video is good enough because it's what they have always known. For someone who has only grown up with high definition video, going back to standard would be a noticeable difference. I suspect it will be the same with colour rendering: seeing or not seeing those colours that were part of the signal all along.

Andrew

Actually, the print world isn't in decline. I think you are confusing it with the fate of newspapers (http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/). Not even the paperless office has kicked in yet.

>>
Feb 1, 2010 3:27 PM
InfoTrends has released its "U.S. Printing and Publishing Market Sizing report for 2008 - 2013." According to this latest research, continued decline is projected for the overall printing and publishing industries beyond 2010. While InfoTrends maintains that the economy will resume its recovery which began in the third quarter of 2009, it believes that the printing industry will remain in decline until at least 2013.
<<

That's very interesting. The iPad and its ilk will be having an effect, and so too will people delaying or re-evaluating their needs in a really tough economy.

Did see an article recently where student feedback from a trial at a university rated the electronic book readers as fantastic for leisure reading, but no good for serious study usage with 80% deciding they wouldn't want to go back to using one. Sorry I don't have the link handy to reference it.

Andrew

Wasn't this tried before?!

Vintage Paper Ads - 1972 Panasonic Quatrecolor Television Ad - Four Things! (http://store.valueweb.com/servlet/vintagepaperads/-strse-18149/1972-Panasonic-Quatrecolor-Television/Detail)

Super-interesting that they were doing this before the availability of digital processing. Those analogue geeks were something else again!

More adverts: Popular Science (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=PgEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=quatrecolor&source=bl&ots=LXj-DTFXgA&sig=irv8JK5KTHkGcu0eYWC2gvS3qe0&hl=en&ei=mOb0S5qEO43c7APMz-D_BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=quatrecolor&f=false) and Black Enterprise (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=8Tej-MLz6tkC&pg=PP2&lpg=PP2&dq=quatrecolor&source=bl&ots=qG2EpUcGqH&sig=mlKY3FmVg_Pz8YtpzNnn9Ejlrpk&hl=en&ei=mOb0S5qEO43c7APMz-D_BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=quatrecolor&f=false).

Andrew

Of course they were, who else could think up NTSC?

A & A thanks much for the ads!

Never Twice the Same Colour ? (citation (http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/bye2ntsc89.html))

Andrew :-)

All I care about is the content. Then the tech quality used to record it it (ie does it look "emotionally good"). Then after that whether it is technically good. As a viewer. Not as a tech engineer.

I'd have to see this fourth pixel to be convinced. I'd have to know how it inter relates to the info that is recorded at source. How is it actually helping what has already been recorded?

My initial reaction was to think a 4-sensor (RGBY) camcorder would be needed to provide content that could take advantage of what an RGBY monitor displays. Otherwise, the extra yellow would be artificial.

But maybe the only reason for RGBY monitors is because of imperfect RGB filters. The red, green, and blue filter materials being used aren't really "pure", and therefore cannot reach every possible visible color.

Jon, is this latter the reason for the yellow pixel? Or, is an RGBY camcorder needed to take full advantage of that 4th color?

Ken

The 4th pixel allows the Quattron TVs to exceed the ITU Rec. 709 color space. If we were making calibrated production monitors, we could tune it to produce every color that the signal can represent without gaps.

But, we're selling TVs to the general public. So, we've created an algorithm that produces colors beyond Rec. 709. The idea is to represent as many colors from the real world as possible, even if the camera and transmission system can't represent those colors.

If you suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that we've done this perfectly, then this may or may not be what you want. On one hand, it's not exactly the same as the colorist saw in his suite. (Of course, no two monitors match exactly, so nobody gets that anyway. That's why a colorist never works with two monitors!) On the other hand, if you're watching Planet Earth, you don't want to see what they saw in the studio. You want to see what they actually saw in Africa/Antarctica/wherever.

And, who is to say that the director didn't want to push those saturated yellows, golds and cyans a bit hotter? If the colorist pushed those colors all the way to the limit, it's not unlikely that they might have wanted to push them a bit further if they could.

One place where the Quattron approach works well is when watching sports. When the helmets are gold, you really want to see gold, not a watered-down orange/yellow. The Chargers' lightning bolt is really bright yellow. The Dolphins' teal is to the limit in real life.

So, whether or not Sharp's 4th pixel approach is for you depends a bit on philosophy. And keep in mind that we don't push mid and low saturated colors beyond the director's intent. It's not going to make a sepia film bright yellow.

Now, back to that suspension of disbelief. Of course, we can't push the gamut area beyond Rec. 709 without taking some license. So, no, it's not guaranteed to be perfect. That said, there are two things that allows this to work well in the real world... First, the estimates are not far off. I have yet to see a scene where the color looked wrong or fake. We don't make gold stuff yellow or yellow stuff gold. So stuff looks really good to the human eye, whether or not it's measurably perfect. Second, the bit depth of the processing is good enough that those bright, high saturated colors don't look choppy or contoured. To my eye, the images look really smooth and vivid in the saturated areas. By contrast, normal sets sometimes look a bit dull and artificially limited by comparison. The most important aspect is that the processing is smooth and natural, so it never jumps out and looks synthetic. (If I had watched it and saw singing or stray pixels, I'd be quietly reading this thread and staying far away from the "Post" button.)

The Quattron will never appeal to the philosophical purist. If your goal is to buy a perfectly calibrated Rec. 709 post production monitor, this is not the product for you. On the other hand, the product is faithful on lower saturation stuff, so it's not going to turn your historical drama into a cartoon. Yet, on sports and high-saturation nature and science stuff, the colors really pop while maintaining a smooth, organic look.

As an example of a faithful look at moderate saturation, I played our recent short, Twisted Game, on a Quattron a couple days after we rendered the final, and I don't recall a hint of oversaturation in what I saw. It just plain looked good. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/eos-5d-mk-ii-sample-clips-gallery/477282-horror-5d-mark-ii-twisted-game.html So, in the real world, I don't think this TV will offend a philosophical purist as much as they might expect.

All that said, I would recommend this TV for viewing content, but not for producing it. With audio monitors, if you mix with speakers with strong bass, your mixes will have weak bass. If your speakers have strong highs, your mixes will have weak highs. Similarly, if you do color correction on this TV, you're likely to deliver content where you undersaturate your brightest colors.

In the studio, use flat monitors for clinical accuracy. In the living room, feel free to use "tuned" speakers to deliver big, sparkling sounds at nominal volume levels. Same thing for Quattron TVs: they're designed as end use TVs, not as flat reference monitors.

I hope that helps!

Thanks Jon great insight into the product. Also enjoyed your "Twisted Game".

Jon just curious - why this Quattron technology when OLED promises so much more? Real blacks, that is.
Sure at the moment, until they sort out the kinks, it is prohibitively more expensive but at least everyone will be able to see the difference! And no need for special translation etc...

I suspect that OLED would benefit from a 4th colour pixel just as much as plasma or LED display technology would.

Andrew

Andrew is right. In theory, any display can benefit from a wider color range. It's not mutually exclusive.

Regarding OLED, it's an exciting technology, but it's not competitive in today's TV marketplace in terms of screen size, production volumes and price.

True - but here we are talking about investing money in new tech and with limited resources I'm wondering why pursue something which by all accounts will be a hard sell. It also sounds like expensive technology to implement, but I guess if it gives Sharp an advantage at the retail store it may pay dividends. I understand why 3D would take precedence (easy to market, sexy to consumers) but Quattron seems a bit left field to me. I guess I'll just have to go and see one for myself and see if I can pick the difference...

BTW another thread in this section talks about a new Dupont process for OLED - sounds promising..

Maybe there is some lateral thinking in their approach. After all, don't we all look across a retail display of screens and look for the one with the best picture and colour? All the other screens may look a bit off by comparison.

If they can get their economy of scale up and make the pricing within cooee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooee) of the competition, they may well be on to a winner.

Andrew

Just spotted this in a catalogue today ... quad-pixel technology is now in stores in Australia.

Andrew

Ha ha - I love the way they try to show the 'difference" between TV screens in an online or printed catalogue.. wow, you can really see the difference!

I guess that's always been the case for colour TV sets.

At least they are on the ball with showcasing the better rendition of the yellows, as well as telling people they need to come in to the store to see it for themselves.

I for one have decided to make the trip sometime soon to see it for myself. Should be interesting.

Andew