Narrow band displays — where it appears
Named by 22 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Whose eyes
The standard observer is an average over seventeen people, and no reader is it. What that costs was small when displays were broad and grows every time the primaries get narrower.
A fourth primary is a design
A display's fourth emitter is sold as more colour. Optimised instead against how far apart two hundred eyes are about its white — with the gamut held fixed so it cannot cheat — it buys agreement, and two and a half times closer together than three primaries reaching the same area, and the wavelengths it chooses are not the ones anybody would pick.
A gamut has a population
Whether a display can reproduce a paint is a fact about somebody's cones, so the boundary of a gamut is not a curve but a band. On a laser projector, ten of twenty-eight boundary surfaces are ones the standard observer calls displayable and some real people cannot see — and the wider the gamut, the wider the band.
The grid hid the observer
On this collection's five-nanometre grid a three-laser projector's observer disagreement is exactly zero. On a quarter-nanometre grid it is 2.34 ΔE₀₀ and the largest in the table. The two audits of this round meet here, and the first one does not compound with the second — it removes it.
One wavelength is everyone's colour
A stimulus with a single wavelength in it produces the same relative cone excitations for every observer, exactly, whatever their age or field size. A display made of three such stimuli is where observers disagree most. Both statements are consequences of the same algebra, and the second is why laser projection has an observer problem.
The peaks move the flanks
Shifting a cone's peak wavelength by three nanometres changes its sensitivity at its own maximum by almost nothing and on its flanks by several per cent, because a maximum is flat and a flank is steep. Every display primary sits on a flank, which is why a pigment polymorphism is worth 3.60 ΔE₀₀ under a laser projector.
A narrow primary buys a disagreement
The observer audit decomposes what a display costs a population. Narrowing the primaries raises the pigment-peak departure monotonically, moving one raises or lowers the macular departure, and the two respond to different design variables — so a wide gamut and an observer-robust display are bought with the same money.
A soft proof is exact for one reader
A display can be driven to match a printed patch exactly for the standard observer — three equations, three unknowns, agreement to fourteen decimal places. Two hundred observers drawn from a realistic population see the same screen and print a median of 2.1 colour differences apart on an OLED panel and 5.4 apart at the ninety-fifth percentile. On a laser projector the ninety-fifth percentile is 7.5. The patch that fails worst is unprinted paper, and in the chain's own unit the ninety-fifth percentile reader's stage is larger than every one of the four stages a delivery chain is budgeted for.
A name moves with the reader
Three earlier essays have moved a colour's name by changing the distance function, the room and the space. All three held the observer fixed. Handed the same light from the same display, sixty observers rename between 3.5 and 13.1 per cent of the gamut against the standard observer, a quarter of its colours have a dissenter in twenty, and the narrower the display's primaries the worse it gets.
Three lines spare a slow pigment
A pigment that cannot switch faster than forty nanometres loses more than a per cent of its reach in 183 of the object-colour solid's 305 directions under daylight. Under an LED whose light sits in three narrow lines, it loses that much in 62. Between the lines almost nothing is measured, so a slow reflectance can do its changing there — until its transitions are as wide as the lines are far apart, at which point the lamp stops helping and the count jumps to daylight's.
A fourth emitter spends the gap it fills
A three-emitter LED lets a pigment that takes forty nanometres to switch reach most of its ideal solid, because the lamp is dark where the pigment is slow. Adding a fourth emitter to render better takes that darkness back — but only if it is put in the middle of a gap. At 490 nanometres it costs 172 of the solid's 312 directions against the three-emitter lamp's 62, and renders two points worse. At 540 it costs three directions and renders two and a half points better.
The gap has to be dark, not the line narrow
A lamp whose light sits in three narrow emitters lets a blunt pigment reach most of its ideal solid, and the reason was given as the spacing of the lines. Broadening those emitters without moving them says otherwise. At 1.3 times their nominal width the lamp still looks like a line spectrum, its closest spacing has not changed at all, and half the rescue is gone — because the darkest point of the narrow gap has risen from one per cent of the lamp's peak to seven.
A lopsided band does not break the trade
A fourth emitter added to a three-emitter LED renders colours better and costs a slow pigment its reach, and the position that renders best and the position that costs least were thirty-five nanometres apart. The obvious suspect was the shape: every emitter searched was a symmetric bump, and a band with its skirt on one side might fill a gap without splitting it. Freed to be lopsided, it saves between one and seven of the solid's three hundred directions. No band renders like the amber emitter and costs like the green one, the lopsided bands that help lean the other way from the proposal, and what the fourth band renders was never the lamp's white.
The pigment decides the trade, not the band
A four-emitter lamp that renders well costs a slow pigment part of its reach, and reshaping the fourth band barely changes that. Changing the pigment changes it a great deal. Modelled as three absorption bands none narrower than forty nanometres, rather than as a forty-nanometre slope limit, a slow pigment loses a third fewer of the solid's directions under the best-rendering lamp, and the price of going from the three-emitter lamp to a fidelity of 88 halves. The lopsided band that helped a slope-limited pigment does nothing at all for this one. And at 590 nanometres a fourth band renders at 86 almost for free.
Written in energy, the bands spare the green
A slow pigment modelled as absorption bands pays half what a slope limit pays for a four-emitter lamp's rendering, and a fourth band at 590 nanometres costs it almost nothing. That result assumed every band is at least forty nanometres wide, and a real absorption band has a width in energy, not in nanometres. Written that way it is narrower in the blue and wider in the red, and the fear was that the red would take back the amber. It does not. The band limit written in energy loses fewer directions under every lamp, the fourth band at 590 still costs six, and the price of rendering at 88 falls from ten directions to six — because the directions it wins back are green, not amber.
The lamp outweighs the pigment model
Three models of what a real colorant can do — a slope limit, absorption bands forty nanometres wide, and bands whose width is fixed in energy — were ranked under lamps of narrow emitters, slope dearest and energy cheapest. Under daylight, tungsten and a white LED the ranking holds, every time. What changes is everything else: each model loses two and a half to three and a half times as many directions of the object-colour solid under a broadband lamp as under three narrow emitters, and the difference between the models is smaller than the difference between the lamps. Under tungsten, whose power rises smoothly to the red, the three models are nearly one.
A tube spares a pigment through its phosphors
Three models of a real pigment lose two and a half to three and a half times as many directions of the object-colour solid under daylight as under three narrow emitters. A fluorescent tube is both kinds of lamp — narrow mercury lines on phosphor bands — and the prediction was that its bands would light the gaps between its lines and put it two thirds of the way to daylight. A triphosphor tube sits with the emitters instead: 26 directions lost to forty-nanometre bands, against the emitters' 23 and daylight's 73. The credit is its phosphors'. Its coating alone, lines taken out, loses fewer still; its mercury lines cost directions whose edges sit in the gaps between the phosphors, and doubled they cost more. A halophosphate tube, the same lines on two broad bands, costs what daylight costs at the same rendering index.
A mercury lamp's few losses are deep
Every census of what a slow pigment can reach has counted the directions of the object-colour solid it misses by more than one per cent, and by that count a clear mercury lamp — four visible lines and nothing else — spares a pigment as well as three narrow emitters do. Read for depth, it is the one lamp of nine whose losses do not fall away: half of what a slope-limited pigment loses under it, it loses by more than five per cent, and its mean shortfall is half as large again as under the emitters or a triphosphor tube. Every one of those losses is the same kind of colour: one that reflects the mercury's green line at 546 nm and absorbs its yellow line at 578, or the reverse, 32 nm apart. The dark-share rule that ordered the counts orders the depths less well.
A violet primary is no spike to the quantiser
ΔEITP makes a display's blue its sharpest corner, about three times a margin, and the account of why predicted that a shorter-wavelength blue would be sharper still — past four times by 450 nm. Moving a monochromatic blue primary from 490 nm to 440 does the opposite. ΔEITP's blue corner is sharpest at 485 nm, ×4.37, and falls at every step to ×1.23 at 440, where CIELAB's runs the other way, from ×1.92 at 480 to ×11.8, and ΔE₀₀ follows CIELAB. The spike needs the two primaries that can be added to the blue to move it in nearly the same direction. Adding red always raises the blue's L signal by the larger fraction. Adding green does so only while the blue carries enough M signal of its own; a violet primary carries almost none, so adding green raises its M by the larger fraction and the two steps split, from 37 degrees apart to 111. No cone response rescues it — a logarithm blunts the violet further — and a brighter display dulls it while sharpening the longer blues.
The green primary decides how sharp the blue is
ΔEITP makes a display's blue its sharpest corner when the blue sits near 485 nm and nearly a face when it sits at 440, and the turn between them is where adding green stops raising the blue's L signal by the larger fraction. The prediction was that the turn follows the green — near 445 nm with a 545 nm green, near 470 with a 515 nm one. It follows the green, by less than half as much at the short end: 461 nm with a 515 nm green, 446 with a 545 nm one, and with a 555 nm green there is no turn left in the range at all. What the prediction did not ask is larger. The green sets how sharp the blue can be: with the blue at 485 nm the corner moves 2.4 times a margin against a 505 nm green and 8.2 times against a 555 nm one, while the sharpest blue stays at 485 nm for every green. The red primary, moved from 615 to 690 nm, leaves the turn where it was to a hundredth of a nanometre. The appearance model follows the green far more gently, under half of ΔEITP's move at every green.
A broad green sharpens the blue; a broad blue dulls it
ΔEITP makes a display's blue corner sharp or blunt according to its primaries, and the census of single-wavelength primaries found the green deciding how sharp — the 485 nm blue's corner moving 4.37 times a margin against a 530 nm green and 8.19 against a 555 nm one. Real primaries have widths, and the prediction was that a broad green acts as a longer green, raising the spike and moving the turn towards the violet, while a broad blue barely matters. The first half holds: a green forty nanometres wide at 530 nm sharpens the 485 nm corner to 5.05 and moves the turn from 453.7 nm to 451.2, as a single-wavelength green at 535.8 nm would, though its dominant wavelength has moved only to 533. The second half does not: a blue twenty nanometres wide moves the turn by a nanometre but dulls the corner by a tenth, to 3.94. The two widths pull the corner opposite ways, and a display whose green and blue are both broad lands near where its line primaries were. The red, at forty nanometres, still changes nothing that matters.
A green's long tail sharpens the blue; its short tail does not
A quantum-dot green falls steeply on one side and trails on the other, and the prediction was that a tail on its long side, holding a third of its power, would make ΔEITP's blue corner treat the green as a line past 538 nm, further than a symmetric forty-nanometre green's 535.8, because all its spread is on the L side. It does: 540.7 nm, the 485 nm corner rising from ×4.51 to ×5.70. The control is the larger finding. The same tail on the short side costs the green far more purity — 0.77 against the long tail's 0.95 — and moves its equivalent line by under a nanometre and a half. The corner reads the green's ratio of L to M signal, to within a third of a nanometre for every long tail, and not its purity, its centroid or its dominant wavelength; a short tail lowers that ratio less than its colour suggests and brings S signal that pushes the corner back.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Individual variationObserver metamerismOptimal coloursPigmentSpectral power distributionStandard observerGamutModelling assumptionPrimariesDisplay gamutObject-colour solidColour rendering