On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 19:48 +1000, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote: >>> BTW this is what the pixels look like: >>> http://members.iinet.net.au/~eyaleb/attachments/20200801/dsc08774-part1.jpg >>> Looks like BGR left-to-right? Should that matter? >> It's kind of hard to tell, but looking at the grouping, with widest >> gap between two colours, it looks like green red blue GAP green >> red blue > Actually, looking half way down the image, checking for the dark > vertical gaps, the left side looks like GRB and the right side more > like BGR. Mmm. Well, it's definitely not RGB, the pixels aren't in that order. They do fit a BGR sequence. The gap mayn't be important, that could be manufacturing tolerances, as well as distorted by chromatic aberrations in the camera lens (blue will often severely shift focus, and position relative to other colours). > I am looking closer at the monitor. I created (gimp) a small test > image of red pixels on black bg. It is simply a run of r-b-r-b-r-b... > pixels and the next row if shifted one pixel. > > http://members.iinet.net.au/~eyaleb/attachments/20200801/dots-red.jpg In your browser, zoom in and out with the browser's zoom (on some browsers that's done with the ctrl and + or - keys). See the various interference patterns? Some TVs will do those kinds of things with their normal picture reproduction, because they're processing the picture, and don't show it "as-is." They try to improve the picture, by doing things with the adjacent picture data, and that creates imagery that just didn't exist in the first place. They can try to sharpen images by drawing an inverse of some of the image a few pixels over. They can try smoothing out harsh contrast, by doing the opposite (putting something of an in-between value between pixels). They may try making colours look more vibrant, but putting opposing colours around some pixels (it's the old butcher trick of putting green plastic around meat, to make it look redder). They may try noise reduction by averaging adjacent areas together. You can get rendering errors, and sub-standard circuitry that bleeds the signal of one thing into adjacent things. Harsh checkerboard test patterns can easily show up design deficiencies, where the manufacturer only ever expected a telly to show normal imagery (which tends to have smoother transitions) and designed it to barely manage to do that. On my Sony LCD telly, I turned off all the enhancements, because they just made a mess of the picture. Now, anything shot with a decent cameraman, and edited by competent person, looks great. I work in video production, I know what a camera can do, and should look like. And I remember seeing the cinema classics in 75 mm prints in some theatres - the cinematography was aesthetically pleasing. > I now display this image at 100% (1:1) and take a closeup picture. > What I see is nothing like what I expect .. [snip]... I now suspect > the TV more than anything else. I must find another to compare to... I'd be suspicious of your television, too. If it shows nice cinematic pictures, be happy about that. Most home entertainment gadgets that display some text on a tv set use large fonts designed to be viewed from a distance (and small fonts would often look awful, as well as be hard to read). -- uname -rsvp Linux 3.10.0-1127.18.2.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 26 15:27:06 UTC 2020 x86_64 Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted. I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
