Okay so I got a question about monitor tech, lets say going back

I feel like it wouldn't be possible to have a cymk monitor.
From wikipedia page on Subtractive colour: "additive color systems start with darkness".

Pixels emit light, and light is additive. Rgb is an additive colour scheme.

continuing from >>59186939

Perhaps the specific colours RGB wouldn't need to have been used , but I think it has something to do with the gamut that the human eye sees. We see green a lot.

For a CYMK monitor you could have a backlight white screen providing white light and then in front of that would be a screen containing small light filters (think cellophane) which would represent pixels. So per pixel you'd have 1 cyan, magenta, and yellow bit of cellophane and these would alternate somehow mechanically.

Or instead of that, in front of this backlight, a screen containing dyes. It just needs to be a subtractive medium.

Just from re-reading your post you seem to misunderstand the difference between additive and subtractive colour models.

"These colors when combined at full brightness are also more perceptually Brighter than RGB is. It will produce brighter more scintillating white colors."
In the CYMK colour scheme CYM combined form black, not white. You seem to be proposing using CYM as primary colours in an additive colour model.
This would limit the number of colours that could be expressed compared to using RGB.

>>59187031
this makes sense

actually what I was thinking is a 4 color element pixel like you see on stadium displays

CMY being colored elements just like a monitor already has. The fourth being a White color element like its mostly just clear (or opaque to light spectrum that is harmful to the eyes)

>>59187155
What if, instead of adding light using picutre elements, the primaries would be blocking the light? A reverse process where CMY could be implemented. Turning off light would act as a black to compensate for lack of dynamic range otherwise, just like in print.

>CMYK combined has brighter colors
CMYK together is black. RBG is light-color, and CMYK is reflected-color or object color, like ink on paper (with a white light in the room)
CMYK cannot be bright by itself, but relies on a white backlight or ambient light. I'm sure you can see why we would rather use the ligh-color spectrum instead of a reflected-color spectrum for something that emits light, can't you?

>>59187217
Yeah, that would be subtractive then. And is what I described in >>59187031.
The medium in front of the backlight would contain CYM pixel elements, filtering the light.

The difficulty is in varying the amount of filtering.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 1719x1240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1719x1240px

>>59187195
>clear light
Are you retarded or something?
This entire thread could've been avoided with a single Google search

>>59187262
>unironically suggesting to use "Google" botnet

>>59187217
Imagine color e-readers but with absolutely no backlight
Imagine the gameboy color

>>59187276
Well a duckduckgo search probably wouldn't have answered your question

>>59186792
cmyk ads colors to get black, rgb ads colors to get white.

cmyk is used in printers as you start with a white background and add paint to change the color.

RGB is used in screens because you add light to change the colors.

When all light sources is turned off, the screen becomes black. Making a good black when all light sources is on is a lot harder.

File: image.jpg (89KB, 1000x769px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1000x769px

Why aren't black lights actually black?

>>59187031
No, CMYK colors are based on absorbing and reflecting light. What you describe is basically how RGB monitors already work.

You could have an additive colour scheme with the three primary colours rotated 60° in hue compared to RGB, right? I think YPbPr is another additive colour scheme kind of like that.

>>59187439
"CMYK colors are based on absorbing and reflecting light"

Did you miss the part where I said "a screen containing small light filters"

>>59187524
please share with us how you would make something like that work.

>>59187579
I have no idea. I was just describing the concept.

>>59187524
Small light filters would be modifying emitted light, not reflected light.

>>59187343


If you add Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow in the form of light spectrum you will end up with a Bright color but it may not contain the full spectrum. An off-white of some kind.

Adding Light never produces black.
#Duh

However that all depends on how you tweak the Magenta color. You could still end up with a more or less pure white as a result.

Cyan - blue green light spectrum (~490nm)
Yellow - ~580nm
Magenta - two emission lines at roughly 750nm (red) and 440nm (blue)

and for the douchebag who remarked about white light being clear
White - emission lines all across the spectrum


>>59187621
there aint a single fucking thing about monitors that involves reflected light, unless you're talking about a wall projector or one of those old big screen antiques people came over to some rich dude's house to watch sports on

CRTs project a beam at a phosphorescent layer on the inside of the monitor which then glows.

>>59187621
Is reflection important? Isn't modifying emitted light enough?

>>59187518
YPbPr is a digital representation of YUV. It defines how a color is stored rather than how the planes interact. It can't be called additive or subtractive. Upon decoding it is always presented as RGB. Y plane stores light/brightness information, U and V planes store color difference information. As the spatial resolution of color is less likely to be noticed it can be stored and transmitted at a lower resolution, reducing bandwith compared to RGB.

>>59187657
I think he was merely reflecting, or rather projecting, his own inadequacies

>>59187652
>there aint a single fucking thing about monitors that involves reflected light
And that's why monitors use RGB and not CMY.

>>59187675
Where'd you come from?

File: timetravel oh fuck.gif (484KB, 245x180px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 245x180px

>>59187703
another plane of existence

hence questions about making a different version of video signals

>>59187663
Okay, makes sense. I definitely used to think it was yttrium, lead and praseodymium.

File: CIE_1976_UCS.png (513KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 2048x2048px

>>59186792
Humans have three types of cone cells in their retinas, so we perceive colors as points in a 3D continuum.

Because our eyes can't distinguish the difference between, e.g., a red and a green vs. two yellow photons, it also means that we can make displays with as few as 3 narrow wavelength ranges that can reproduce to our eyes nearly every perceived color.

Because the the perceptual model has slightly rounded edges, you can't actually reproduce every perfectly saturated color with a finite number of display colors, but you can get close enough that people mostly don't really notice or care.

RGB does an OK job of covering the CIE chromaticity horseshoe (the color/saturation plane of the 3D color space ignoring brightness), but you could do a slightly better job with red-green-violet if you were willing to overlook efficiency and potential retinal damage issues.

>>59187599
Changing intensity of an LED is very easy to do, but we still have limits to the color depth with this approach.
If you want to make a new technology that seems like a worse idea from the beginning, I have to wonder why?

>>59187657
You have cones in your eyes that absorb red, green and blue wavelengths (roughly). When you try to mix light CMY filtered light, you only get dull washed out colors, because each component activates more than one kind of cone.

In a nutshell,
C=G+B
Y=R+G
C+Y=R+2G+B

There is no way to get 1G.

>>59187826
No I don't want to implement a new technology. It's an interesting idea though.

>>59187836
Using the system I described in >>59187031
You would represent green by activating the Cyan and Yellow Filters (see OP image). You're thinking additively.

>>59187909
And I'm saying that when you use an additive system, (which is what you describe), to mix cyan and yellow light, all you're going to get is a shitty pale green, because you're activating ALL your cones instead of just your green cones. The reason why C+Y comes out to vivid green on paper is because you're using pigments to absorb all the light except for green (C absorbs the red light Y reflects, Y absorbs the blue light C reflects).

>>59188156
Yeah, but what I described isn't an additive system. I agree with you, if you add CY light you won't get green. If you filter white light with C and Y filters however you will get green.

File: ahhhh, soothing!.png (15KB, 640x399px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 640x399px

>>59186792
Whoa, back the fuck up, back up! You want to consider a different type of color space? Used with monitors?

You want one that's historically conceivable? Duochrome.

Red and cyan seems the most likely.

>>59187217
Power glutton. Probably an ugly power glutton.

You want to to consider non RGB full color monitors? Look at RGB being eliminated at the connector and signal level instead!

>>59186939
>I feel like it wouldn't be possible to have a cymk monitor.
Maybe with e-ink. But no light-emitting monitor could be subtractive.

>>59186792
http://cruxcreative.com/rgb-vs-cmyk-when-to-use-which-and-why/

>>59188202
Okay, so you're suggesting layering your filters physically on top of one another. Where do your filters go when they're not active, then?

>>59188457
Yeah. I was thinking perhaps they tilt? Idk. Or rapidly slide.

>>59188510
Sounds expensive, failure prone, and power hungry. And you'll be lucky if it doesn't look like a screen door, having to store a switching mechanism and potentially up to 3 pixel sized filters besides every pixel (which will have to be subpixel sized, because your pixels only do CMYRGB). Maybe suitable for a steampunk baseball jumbotron.

File: moon-crescent-seen-over-London-on-misty-night-with-orange-sodium-streetlamp-and-telephone-wires-2-DHD.jpg (793KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 1600x1200px

>>59188202
Sounds very power consuming. So you'd really want to use an efficient kind of lamp. Like sodium vapour.

And there your problem is made one third as complex!

Of course, you could use other light sources, but then it wouldn't be a "CMY" color scheme, it would be something revolved around the type of lamp used.

I thought CMYK is for papers.

>>59189021
No. You can't use a light source such as a lamp. Only light filters.

>>59189214
It is

>>59189583
But with a subtractive monitor, you would have a light source, unless you were using a skylight or something.

>>59189021
I still can't deal with the fact that the most efficient lights are monochromatic. Why, fucking why?

>>59189613
YOU'RE ALLOWED AN INITIAL LIGHT SOURCE. IT'S THE FILTERING OF SAID LIGHT SOURCE THAT IS IMPORTANT. I'M MAD NOW.

File: kzin6.jpg (11KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x200px

>>59190250
Because monkeys with their fancyassed color vision are not the master species, it's kittehs that the gods favour!

File: jack in the box checkem.jpg (66KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x800px

>>59190299
I know right?